Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH LINEN BANK ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Derelict Land

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives the Government are currently taking to encourage local authorities to reclaim derelict land.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): Circular 17/77 drew attention to the benefits of reclaiming derelict land and set out the grants, including 100 per cent. grants in the assisted areas and derelict land clearance areas, which are available to local authorities for this purpose.

Mr. Silvester: As there is about 30 square miles of derelict land in the North-West, would the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the recent statement suggesting that there will be improved conditions for Merseyside will not mean that there will be a reduction in the support for other areas in the North-West?

Mr. Marks: There has been a reduction in the allocation of grants, but the problem has been the take-up of the allocation by the local authorities, which has been only 50 per cent. The allocation has therefore been cut for this year—I am sure that hon. Members on the Oppo-

sition Benches who are always demanding cuts will support that—but the amount is still above what was requested by the district and county authorities last year.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister consider the wisdom of asking local authorities to make a check on the ground that they own already? Is he aware that some months ago in Birmingham the council wrote to a man asking him to clear up a particularly bad piece of land and that he wrote back to say that he agreed that the bottles, tramps, and rubbish should be removed from the land but that it belonged to the council? Would it not be advisable to ask councils to check what land they own?

Mr. Marks: The hon. Lady should take up that matter with the authority concerned. I have told local authorities of the need to clear up derelict land and I have said that funds are available for that purpose.

Mr. Rossi: Is it enough to leave the matter to the individual local authority? Why do not the Government take the initiative and require local authorities to prepare a Domesday Book of all land in public ownership, and make sure that the land is brought forward for development at the earliest possible moment? If the resources for development are not available to local authorities, the land should be sold for private development and the capital used for public works.

Mr. Marks: I am sure that hon. Members would not approve of such dictation to local authorities. I hope that the local authorities—which, to the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman, are now mainly controlled by his party—will take full advantage of the grants available, and the hon. Gentleman should urge them to do so.

New Towns

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about Government policy following his recent statement on new towns.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): The consultations promised in my statement on 5th April about the reappraisal of new towns led to a series of meetings with the


authorities concerned and I am now receiving comments from them and from other interested organisations.

Mrs. Bain: No doubt the Secretary of State is aware of the lobby of NALGO representatives that took place on Monday and therefore accepts that many organisations fear a conflict over resources to meet the demands of inner city developments and new town development. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that any expenditure on inner cities will be in addition to expenditure on new towns? Will he bear in mind the rôle of new towns in attracting industry, and does he agree that it would be ridiculous to reverse this policy at a time of high unemployment?

Mr. Shore: As the hon. Lady knows, we must try to balance the undoubted and continuing need for new towns development—although a need rather more reduced in scale in the 1980s than had previously been thought—with the development of the inner cities. I cannot give a categorical assurance that no diversion of resources will take place but I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that the greater part of the increased expenditure on the inner cities programme will not come from cuts in the new towns programme. I am aware of the lobby which took place and I have had an opportunity of meeting and talking with NALGO leaders.

Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the assurances that he gave a couple of weeks ago that the new towns would not be seriously affected by the cuts, the 2¼ million people who live in new towns are anxious about the situation? Will he give consideration to the possibility of encouraging development corporations to indicate to industry the possible changes, and where they will apply, so that local communities may feel that there is some sort of dialogue going on, because that would avoid this anxiety?

Mr. Shore: Inevitably at the earliest stage in our thinking about the future size of the new towns we had to conduct the discussions rather discreetly—as I am sure my hon. Friend knows. Following the statement that I made on 5th April, we believe that the people of the new towns who are interested in the future of their towns—as I know they are—will

take and will be given every opportunity to take part in the debate on their future.

Mr. Hal Miller: Following the representations from all sides about the need for the provision of health facilities in new towns, has the right hon. Gentleman had consultations with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on the general point and, particularly, on the provision of a new district general hospital at Redditch?

Mr. Shore: I am in frequent touch with my right hon. Friend on the health provision needs in new towns. If substantial changes that are made as a result of the current review would affect the provision of health facilities, I shall have the benefit of discussions with my right hon. Friend in coming to any decision.

Mr. George Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend comment on any plans he may have to vary the composition of new towns' boards, especially with a view to extending the representation to local authorities and trade unions?

Mr. Shore: We keep the composition of the boards under review and as vacancies arise we seek to fill them. We have been paying increasing regard to the local communities in which the new towns are situated, rather than, as in the past, to the exporting authorities from which people have come.

Mr. Rossi: Will the right hon. Gentleman emulate the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who cancelled plans for the Stonehouse New Town in order to provide funds for the East End of Glasgow? Will the right hon. Gentleman cancel the Central Lancashire New Town in order to provide resources for Liverpool and other hard-pressed urban areas of the North-West? May I press him again to see that the commercial and industrial assets in new towns are realised, so that the capital can be used for new town expansion or inner city development, thereby avoiding further public sector borrowing?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has made these points before and I have told him that I am considering them. I have nothing to add to that at this stage. The hon. Gentleman has twice made the same point about the Central Lancashire New


Town and I should like to know whether his view is now the policy of the Opposition Front Bench. I have made a substantial change in the target for the new town, but, on balance, I believe that it is right to provide this new growth point for industry, commerce and people in that part of North-East Lancashire. Many Opposition Members support my decision, and I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman is really speaking for his party.

Construction Industry

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which part of his Department is responsible for assistance to the construction industry; and what are his plans for further help to the industry.

Mr. Shore: My Department has a general responsibility for the construction industry. We have already this year allocated an extra £144 million for construction work in the inner cities in housing improvement and through provision of advance factories. As the economic situation improves I shall be seeking further ways of assisting this hard-pressed industry.

Mr. Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1974 cuts in public expenditure on construction have reached the enormous figure of about £2,000 million while Government help to the construction industry has been only one-tenth of that figure—a very small amount indeed? Does my right hon. Friend not realise the parlous state of the construction industry?

Mr. Shore: I realise the very great difficulties facing the construction industry. These arise, in part, not only from the need to restrain public expenditure but from the substantial fall-back in private investment in housing and private industrial building. The building industry has been very seriously affected by the general state of the economy. I am aware of this fact and I have had a number of discussions with the industry. I shall be looking for ways to help, to the best of my ability, as our economic situation improves.

Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the development land tax remains a deterrent to new construc-

tion and particularly to the extension of existing buildings, and that this has an inevitable effect on the construction industry? Is he prepared to recognise this fact and to do something about it?

Mr. Shore: I should want a great deal of evidence to support that view. There are many factors involved, but the major one affecting industrial building has been the turndown in the economy and the stagnation in investment in recent years. I now see some more hopeful signs, and the indications are that there will be a substantial increase in industrial investment and factory building this year, with a further and larger increase in 1978.

Mr. Madden: As there are 13 unemployed skilled building craftsmen chasing every vacancy, does my right hon. Friend agree that a major way of assisting the situation would be to enable public authorities to undertake more improvement and renovation work and to give them greater opportunities to make mortgage allocations, particularly to first-time buyers?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend's first point was put by representatives of the construction industry when they met the Prime Minister and myself a short time ago. Their view was that considerable gains could be made in the use of labour by putting more resources into improvement and renovation. My reply is that this is very much part of the general thrust of our policy.
We believe that more resources should go to renovation and improvement in our urban centres, and my hon. Friend will know that the arrangements that we have made for virement will enable local authorities which wish to do so to put more money into this form of labour-intensive activity.

Mr. Heseltine: As the general state of the economy was perfectly clear in October 1974, does not the present level of unemployment in the construction industry, which is the worst since 1931, make a mockery of the Government's claim in their last General Election manifesto that they would create a permanent and stable work force? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the measures to which he has referred will achieve a lower level of unemployment


in the construction industry by, say, December?

Mr. Shore: I cannot anticipate the pace or rate of pick-up by the industry. Although the situation for private house building in particular has greatly improved, the question is one of timing and how long it will be before this improvement comes into effect. I believe that we shall see significant improvements next year—

Mr. Heseltine: It could not be worse.

Mr. Shore: Next year is often a good deal better than last year, and this has been the case even under Conservative Governments. It does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to blame us for the state of the construction industry, in the light of the general collapse in house building in 1973-74, when we took over, and the Opposition's insistence on cutting public expenditure programmes.

Rates

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average rate increase in 1977–78 for England and Wales.

Mr. Shore: The average increases in domestic and non-domestic rates over England and Wales are 7·9p and 7·5p, respectively. The House may prefer these expressed in percentage terms—that is, an increase of about 15 per cent. in domestic rates and about 10 per cent. increase in non-domestic rates.

Mr. Knox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency rates are going up this year by about 25 per cent? Does he realise that in a low wage and salary earning area this will put a very great burden on people whose living standards have declined considerably in the past two years?

Mr. Shore: I am aware that in the hon. Gentleman's district and in the county of Staffordshire generally there has been one of the highest rates increases this year—not much short of 30 per cent. Even so, the rates that are being paid are below the average in the West Midlands and below the national average.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in most parts of Britain ratepayers receive good value for money

from the local authorities, despite the hysterical campaign mounted over recent years to bring down the rates? Does he further agree that constant calls on local authorities to reduce their expenditure makes it difficult for them to provide not only services which are within their discretion but, at times, the services which are required by statute?

Mr. Shore: I understand the problems that face local authorities. I agree that there is far too much generalised abuse of local authorities about their alleged nondelivery of value for money. I do not agree that that is so. Given the general economic situation, we have had to establish a broad standstill in local authority expenditure. That means that many desirable locally-financed improvements have had to be postponed.

Sir George Young: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had concerning his proposals on rates following his recent statement.

Mr. Shore: Consultations with the local authority associations are proceeding urgently under the aegis of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. A number of other organisations have been individually invited to comment on the proposals in the Green Paper and my statement contained a general invitation to interested organisations and individuals.

Sir G. Young: Is it not the case that the first-time home buyer, whom the Secretary of State was so anxious to help yesterday, could find himself worse off if the proposed shift to capital valuation took place?

Mr. Shore: That is too generalised a statement. As the hon. Member is aware, a consideration of the implications of shifting to a capital valuation system is taking place. No doubt we shall have a clearer view of this as the consultations proceed.

Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who talk about abolishing the rating system without telling the electorate what they would put in its place are talking absolute nonsense?

Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely demagogic to


put before people the statement that a great national party is proposing to abolish the domestic rating system without saying what is to be put in its place. I want to be fair to the Opposition. Speaking at Ebbw Vale recently, the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition said:
An indirect tax, and more grant from central Government should replace domestic rates.
I am sure that the House will be interested to hear that.

Mr. Speed: May we have an assurance that no steps will be taken by any Government Department to prepare for the transfer to capital values until the principle of the system has been agreed by Parliament?

Mr. Shore: I hope that we shall have a debate on this subject. A change can come about only through legislation. That would give an opportunity to all those who still feel that this should be opposed to express their opinion.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State make it quite clear that until Parliament has so approved the system it would be wrong for officers of the Inland Revenue to use capital values when assessing rateable values?

Mr. Shore: I am not aware that Inland Revenue officers are using capital values at present. Many discussions must take place. If the Opposition want to bring the matter to a head in Parliament and to seek the view of the House, they have Supply Days which they can use.

Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have expressed reservations about the effect, in their area, of the implementation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill; and if he has received any representations from the New Forest District Council.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from local authorities concerning the additional resources which they will need in order to implement the proposals of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill; and what

reply he has made to those representations.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Up to 24th June, written representations had been made to the Department by 48 local authorities in England, including the New Forest District Council. Of these authorities, 40 mentioned resources. We have explained that we are satisfied that the Bill will not require any net overall increase in public expenditure. We accept that the effects in particular districts will varry but believe that any increases in individual areas will be very limited in scale.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the view that the Bill will not increase public expenditure is considered by most local authorities and many councils to be pie in the sky? Is he aware that the Bill as drafted, except for the insertion into it of amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), is believed by many councils, including the New Forest Council, to place an intolerable burden on housing lists? Surely the criterion should be to help those who need help and not merely those who would like it.

Mr. Armstrong: Homelessness is the most acute form of deprivation. That is why we are supporting the Bill. I am aware of the representations from district councils. A total of 66 per cent. of housing authorities have adopted Circular 18/74 and authorities in areas where homelessness is most prevalent are carrying out their duties now.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome some of the amendments that were moved by the Opposition and the constructive attitude taken by the Opposition spokesman, but does the Minister agree that there have been other amendments from other parts of the House?

Mr. Armstrong: We are bringing into legislative effect Circular 18/74, which has been the subject of continuing discussion with local authorities.

Sir A. Meyer: May we have an assurance that the Minister will consider carefully all the arguments that are made, because there are real difficulties in some local authorities, which are liable to be swamped by this legislation?

Mr. Armstrong: We have had a continuing dialogue with local authorities. Even if we accept the figures supplied by the Association of District Councils, the Bill will not place upon local authorities anything like the intolerable burden that has been suggested.

Planning Applications

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he uses when overruling recommendations of inspectors inquiring into local planning applications.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): When taking a decision on a planning application or appeal, whether he agrees with the inspector's recommendation or not, my right hon. Friend has regard to the merits of the case in the light of the provisions of the development plan, if applicable, and of any other material considerations.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is considerable local anger and dismay at the Secretary of State's decision to uphold the appeal by builders to build on land at Lydiate, despite opposition from three local authorities and the recommendation of his own inspector? On what ground does the Secretary of State believe that his Department's people are in a better position to judge than those three local authorities and the inspector? Will he reconsider this case and overturn the Secretary of State's decision?

Mr. Barnett: I am aware of the feelings of certain groups in the locality but, as I have explained, the reasons for the decision were set out in the letter explaining it. I cannot elaborate, since the Secretary of State has given his decision. He has no further jurisdiction in the matter. There can be no question of reopening the case.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is there not often a degree of bewilderment among the parties to an inquiry about the reasons for the Secretary of State differing from the inspector, who has heard all the evidence and submissions? Is it not time to give further consideration to the suggestion that I made some years ago that there should be a panel of inspectors to hear these inquiries, to whom should be entrusted the final decision within the

parameters of a defined policy, supplied to the inspectors and parties involved before the hearing, in the context of each case?

Mr. Barnett: The right hon. and learned Member has made an interesting suggestion. It is unwise to overestimate the number of cases in which this situation has arisen. I am informed that in less than 5 per cent. of appeals does the Secretary of State disagree with the inspector.

Gipsies

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of provision of camp sites for gipsies.

Mr. Marks: The latest available list which I shall publish with this reply shows that provision had been made for 2,254 families, and means that some 5,000 to 6,000 families are still without accommodation.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1968 Act, the Cripps Report and his own visits around the country recently have all highlighted the acute problems being faced by gipsies and being posed by gipsies? Does he further agree that it is now high time that, instead of cajoling, begging and pleading with local authorities to get on with the problem, the Government should take some direct action to provide gipsy sites in the many areas, such as Stockport, which need them?

Mr. Marks: My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the fact that two groups suffer as a result of the failure to provide sites under the 1968 Act, even if that Act itself was adequate—the gipsies themselves, who suffer considerable harassment, particularly in certain areas, and householders who live near the bad, unofficial, illegal and inadequate sites, often without any water supply, without drainage and without refuse collection. The answer, as I recognise from the Cripps Report and my own visits to a number of areas, lies in more good sites. As part of the Government's examination of the Cripps Report, we shall be considering its recommendation that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State should use his powers to direct a local authority to provide sites.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his answer about the great anxiety which is caused to the neighbours of these people will give them some comfort that at least a Minister knows that they are suffering. But knowing that people are suffering is completely inadequate. In Kent we have a massive pseudo-gipsy population. The fact that the Question calls them gipsies and the Minister has referred to them as gipsies is so much rubbish. Very few of these people are gipsies. A real grasp must be taken of this nettle, which is causing great anxiety in all the fruit-growing counties, where their traditional occupations are no longer available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this matter continuingly and sympathetically.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in the early part of his question. We have to realise that if we think only in terms of Romanies and the romantic view of gipsies we shall not solve the problem. The House and the Government will have to deal with the problem, which concerns not only romanies but all the other varieties of travellers—whether they are Irish tinkers, Scottish tinkers, didicois or anything else. This is a serious problem. Some counties have provided no sites whatever under the 1968 Act and I shall bring what pressure I can to bear on them to do so.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no wish to persecute gipsies but that, as has been said, many families are badly affected by unauthorised encampments, not least in the county of Gwent? Therefore, along with the Secretary of State for Wales, will he expedite the provision of suitable camps throughout the country?

Mr. Marks: The Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment are meeting all the various gipsy groups as well as the local authorities. I am meeting the London Boroughs Association on 13th July and hope to meet the other associations connected with local government before the end of July. What I am hoping to get, and what is now being achieved in many areas, is a regional assessment by the people themselves in the region—local authorities and, I hope, the gipsies—of what the needs are, so that they can come to a decision about what a

voluntary allocation should be without waiting for legislation.

Mr. Arthur Jones: What consideration has been given, and with what result, if any, to the Cripps recommendation that Exchequer grants for capital expenditure on the provision of gipsy sites—100 per cent. for five years—should be made?

Mr. Marks: That is an important point and one which we are considering. I think that local authority associations on the whole do not like the idea of specific grants, but the larger number of councillors to whom I have spoken in various parts of the country would welcome it. But the problem is not entirely financial. This Act has now been in operation since 1970. Some authorities have not acted at all since them. The problem concerns not only finance but public opinion, which exerts considerable and understandable pressure on councillors. Those of us who have been members of local authorities know what this can mean. Public opinion is causing a slowing up in the provision of the necessary sites.

Following is the information:


GIPSY SITE PROVISION IN ENGLAND AND WALES AT 1ST JANUARY 1977


ENGLAND


(Sites marked † are temporary)


County and District Council (name and/or location of site)
Number of pitches


Avon
Nil


Bedfordshire


South Bedfordshire (Pepperstock, Caddington)
12


South Bedfordshire (Chiltern View, Eaton Bray)
20


Luton (Stopsley)
20


Bedford (Kempston Hardwick, Stewartby)
24


Berkshire


Newbury (Burghfield Common)
19


Bracknell (Crawthorne)
12


Buckinghamshire


Beaconsfield (Mansion Lane, Iver)
32


Cambridgeshire


Fenland (New Bridge Lane, Wisbech)
16


Peterborough (Oxney Road)
21


Cheshire


Crewe (Wrenbury Heath)
15


Halton (Warrington Road, Widnes)
15†


Chester (Hapsford, nr. Helsby)
15


Cleveland


Stockton-on-Tees (Bowesfield Lane)
20






Cornwall


Kerrier (Camborne)
5


Cumbria
Nil


Derbyshire


North-East Derbyshire (Corbriggs, Grassmoor, Chesterfield)
15


Devonshire


East Devon (Broadclyst, nr. Exeter)
10


East Devon (Sowton. nr. Exeter)
20+20†


Dorset


Poole (Mannings Heath)
22


West Dorset (Piddlehinton, Dorchester)
16


North Dorset (Thornicombe, Blandford)
10


Purbeck (Coldharbour, Wareham)
16


Durham


Darlington (Honeypot Lane)
20†


Darlington (Neasham Road)
20


Sedgefield (East Howie (near Ferryhill)
12†


East Sussex


Weaiden (Severn Barn. Hailsham)
3†


Wealden (Polly Arch, Polegate)
3†


Essex


Epping Forest (School Lane, Standford Rivers)
12


Harlow (Fern Hill Lane)
16


Basildon (Hovefieids)
20


Harlow (Peldon Road) Wintering site
20†


Gloucestershire


Forest of Dean (Cinders Caravan Site, Crump Meadow, Cinderford)
8


Tewkesbury (Cursey Lane, Elmstone Hardwicke)
14


Tewkesbury (The Willows, Sandhurst Lane, near Gloucester)
30


Greater London


Barking (Eastbrook End, Dagenham)
16


Barnet (Colney Hatch Lane, Finchley)
12†


Bexley (Powerscroft Road, Foots cray, Sidcup)
15


Bromley (Star Lane, St. Mary Cray)
12


Camden
Nil


Croydon (Beddington Farm Road)
15


Ealing (Kensington Road, Northolt)
16†


Enfield (Montagu Road, Edmonton)
15


Greenwich (Thistlebrook, Abbey Wood)
54


Hackney
Nil


Hammersmith (Westway)
20


Haringey
Nil


Harrow (Watling Farm, Elstree)
15


Havering (South Park, Dennises Lane)
15


Hillingdon (Colne Park, Cricket field Road, West Drayton
26


Hounslow (The Hartlands, Church Road, Cranford)
17





Kingston-up-Thames (Hook Rise North, Tolworth)
15


Islington
Nil


Kensington and Chelsea
*


Lambeth (Lonesome Depot, off Leonard Road)
15


Lewisham (Thurston Road)
15


Merton (Durnsford Road, Wimbledon)
15


Newham (Clays Lane, Stratford)
14


Redbridge (North View, Forest Road, Hainault)
16


Richmond upon Thames (Bishops Grove, Hampton)
16


Southwark (Dog Kennel Hill)
15†


Sutton (Carshalton Road, Woodmansterne, Banstead)
15


Tower Hamlets
Nil


Waltham Forest (Folly Lane. Walthamstow)
16


Wandsworth (Trewint Street)
12


Greater Manchester


Manchester (Dantzic Street)
16


Bolton (Hall Lane)
16


Bury (Todd Street, Fernhill)
13


Wigan (Bickershaw Lane, Abram, Hindley)
15


Wigan (Miry Lane)
15†


Stockport (Hatherlow Street)
15†


Oldham (Greenhills)
15


Hampshire


Southampton (Redbridge Lane)
20†


Southampton (Kanes Hill)
20†


Hart (Star Hill, Hartley Wintney)
20†


Rushmoor (Minley Road, Cove)
20†


Hereford and Worcester


Wychavon (Hipton Hill, Evesham)
15


Bromsgrove (Houndsfield Lane, Wythall)
12


Hertfordshire


Welwyn/Hatfield (Holwell Court, Cole Green)
20


Hertsmere (Sandy Lane, Bushey)
27


St. Albans (Barley Mow Lane, Smallford)
15


Dacorum (Three Cherry Trees)
15


Watford (Tolpits Lane, Watford)
4†


St. Albans (Watling Street)
6


St. Albans (Park Street)
17 †


Humberside


Beverley (Middledyke Lane, Cottingham)
45 †


Isle of Wight
Nil


Kent


Swale (Church Marches, Milton)
12†


Dartford (Claywood Lane)
12


Medway (Cuxton)
12


Maidstone (Stilebridge Lane)
12


Sevenoaks (Edenbridge)
12


Maidstone (Ulcombe)
12


Ashford (Chillmington, Great Chard)
15


Canterbury (Vauxhall Road)
32


Lancashire


Blackburn (Aqueduct Road, Ewood)
17


Preston (London Road)
15†






Leicestershire


Leicester (MeyneJl Gorse, Golf Course Lane, Braunstone)
15


Bosworth (Aston Firs, Sapcote, Nr. Hinckley)
15


North West Leicestershire (Station Yard, Castle Donington)
3


Lincolnshire


Lincoln (Washingborough Road)
15


South Kesteven (Grantham)
16


Merseyside


Liverpool (Oil Street, Waterloo Dock)
24


St. Helens (Sherdley Road)
12


Norfolk


Norwich (Mile Cross Road)
15


Northamptonshire


Wellingborough (Gypsy Lane, Irchester)
16


Northumberland


Wansbeck (Shields Road, Hartford)
15


North Yorkshire
Nil


Nottinghamshire


Nottingham (Moor Bridge)
151†


Oxfordshire


South Oxfordshire (Sandford-on-Thames, Wallingford)
10+6†


Oxford (Slade Park)
15


Vale of White Horse (Woodhill Lane, East Challow)
12


Salop
Nil


Somerset


Mendip (Berkley)
8


Sedgemoor (Westonzoyland)
8


Taunton Deane (Otterford)
5†


West Somerset (Farringdon Hill Lane, Stogursey)
10


Yeovil (Chilworthy Donyatt)
5†


Yeovil (Chubbards Cross, Ilton)
15


South Yorkshire


Rotherham (North Anston)
15


Doncaster (Armthorpe)
16


Sheffield (Tinsley Park)
15†


Barnsley (Smithies Lane)
15†


Staffordshire


Stoke-on-Trent (Goldenhill)
20


Newcastle-upon-Lyme (Lyme Valley)
15†


Suffolk
Nil


Surrey


Tandridge (Tupwood Lane, Caterham)
10†


Tandridge (Green Lane, Outwood)
30


Waverley (Runford, Guildford Road, Farnham)
15†


Tyne and Wear


Newcastle (Lemington)
10†


Gateshead (Abbott's Road, Oak wellgate)
15†


Warwickshire
Nil





West Midlands


Birmingham (Castle Bromwich)
16


Sandwell (Brierley Lane, Coseley)
15


Wolverhampton (Showell Road, Bushbury)
15


Dudley (Oak Lane, Kingswinford)
15


Walsall (Willenhall Lane, Bloxwich)
15


West Sussex


Chichester (Tangmere)
22


Mid Sussex (Walstead, Nr. Lindfield)
7


Horsham (Two Mile Ash, South-water)
4†


West Yorkshire


Leeds (Cottingley Springs, Gelderd Road)
15


Bradford (Esholt Lane, Baildon)
16


Wakefield (Heath Common)
20†


Bradford (Bradford Metro, Mary Street)
16


Wiltshire


Salisbury (Lode Hill, Downton)
12


Thamesdown (Hay Lane, Wroughton)
30


No. of permanent sites provided at 1st January 1977 102=1,652 pitches


No. of temporary sites provided at 1st January 1977 32= 489 pitches


Total 134=2,141 pitches


* Site provided jointly with Hammersmith L.B.

NOTE: On some temporary sites there are no pitches as such and the size as shown in terms of pitches relates to the general level of occupancy. These levels clearly fluctuate from time to time.

WALES


County
District Council (name and /or location of site)
No of pitches


Clwyd

Nil

Grand Totals: 142 sites (109 permanent, 33 temporary) with 2,254 pitches (1,759 permanent, 495 temporary).

House Purchase (First-time Buyers)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on house purchase for first-time buyers.

Mr. Shore: I want to make it easier for people who wish to become home owners to do so. The Government's specific proposals include new savings bonus and loans schemes, as set out in Chapter 7 of the Green Paper on Housing Policy.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no Minister before has ever felt it necessary to produce a Green Paper the day before answering a parliamentary Question of mine? Does he accept that, although one welcomes the proposals on low-start mortgages and longer-term mortgages, the real nub of the problem is the deposit? Is he satisfied that a maxmum loan of £500, which will carry interest after five years and a relatively small savings bonus, will be adequate? What consideration was given to the alternative proposal that to a couple who save £1,000 a grant of £500 will be given by the Government?

Mr. Shore: I personally rather agree with the hon. Gentleman that the deposit is the most important thing. It is not the only one, but it is for many people the major obstacle to starting on the journey of becoming home owners. Therefore, the proposals are designed to help overcome that hurdle. Whether a £500 loan linked to matching savings is insufficient, as opposed to a £500 grant linked, presumably, to an equivalent amount of savings—

Mr. McCrindle: No, it would be £1,000.

Mr. Shore: But the individual has to do the saving and nothing in my scheme would prevent a person from saving £1,000. He could easily save £1,000 and would still attract a £500 loan. Thus, the difference between the two proposals is the difference between the £500 loan, the interest on which is cancelled for the first five years, and a £500 grant. Perhaps that is not as spectacular a difference as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the recent General Election in Southern Ireland, in which the Fianna Fail Party got into power after promising outright grants to first-time purchasers of as much as £1,000? Surely this country can at least offer £500 as an outright grant.

Mr. Shore: There will be time, as I said, to debate particular proposals. We have put forward what we believe will be a sufficiently attractive proposal to enable many people to overcome a serious hurdle. We obviously will consider the details of the scheme as we debate it in the House, but I must take account of many other claims on the housing budget generally.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not yesterday's Green Paper recommend the building societies to help first-time buyers, those who cannot raise the deposit, and those who want to get the cheaper, older houses? But have not the building societies, unlike local authorities, failed largely to do this? Will my right hon. Friend therefore require the building societies to make available part of their vast funds to the local authorities precisely for that purpose?

Mr. Shore: It would be helpful if the building societies could increase the amount which they make available to help would-be purchasers to overcome that obstacle. One looks upon this as a developing relationship among Government, building societies and local authorities. We have made a good deal of progress this year, but, like my hon. Friend, I am by no means satisfied. We shall keep in touch, together and with the building societies, to see what further needs to be done.

Mr. Welsh: In welcoming the help which is to be given to first-time buyers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that he has looked at the corollary of this situation and will make available an adequate supply of starter homes and extendable homes so as to help young married first-time buyers?

Mr. Shore: I am not certain about the particular categories that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, other than the first-time buyer. It is the first-time buyer to whom this proposal is precisely directed.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In terms of encouraging building societies to join local authorities particularly to help the first-time buyer of older property, is my right hon. Friend aware that that has been done on South Tyneside, where some extremely valuable schemes in the inner areas are now in operation, with the co-operation of building societies and local authorities?

Mr. Shore: I am encouraged to hear that from my hon. Friend, because we have had many examples—I do not complain of them—of failure of co-operation. It is good to hear of cases where we are beginning to get what we very much wish to achieve, namely, effective co-operation between building societies and local authorities.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that one of the greatest harms done to the ability of people to buy low-price houses has been the dramatic reduction in the ceiling on local authority lending for that purpose, as imposed on the authorities by the Government? Bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance that it is often the deposit that presents a difficulty for first-time buyers, does he recognise that by putting forward a policy that will provide a loan and not a grant he is reducing effectively the creditability of the couple concerned, and that the money that he is making available will come off the mortgage that they can obtain from other sources? In fact, the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman announced yesterday is a con. The only way effectively to move forward in this area is to implement a one-to-two grants-to-savings scheme that will dramatically help people to get the deposit together.

Mr. Shore: It is obviously not a con; it is an effort to enable many of our fellow citizens who wish to become home owners to overcome a considerable obstacle. As for whether we have judged the terms of the scheme exactly right, we shall be interested to hear the views of the House in a considered way. The objective is to help. It is no good the hon. Gentleman brushing it aside. The real difference between a £500 interest-free loan for five years and a £500 grant is a good deal less than he is suggesting. As for damaging prospects by reducing local authority lending, the truth is that much local authority lending in the past

has not been directed in precisely the way that we would have wished. I have been making every effort to get the building societies to fill the gap that we had to create in local authority lending last year.

Industrial Cities

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held so far with those large industrial cities which were not included in the inner city aid programme about help with their particular problems.

Mr. Guy Barnett: My right hon. Friend and I have met representatives of Newcastle and, separately, representatives of the other authorities of Tyne and Wear to discuss their partnership requests for inner city assistance. Prior to my right hon. Friend's statement on 6th April we met with several other authorities and their associations.

Mr. Hooley: I welcome the aid that is being given to London, the West Midlands, Liverpool and elsewhere, but is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in other major industrial cities, whose inner city problems are just as serious as those in the areas to which I have referred, and that they have been overlooked in the first round? Will that be taken into consideration, and will some new proposals be brought forward at an early date?

Mr. Barnett: We were aware of a very special concentration and intensity of problems in the cities and areas that have already been selected. We are also aware that similar situations exist in other cities. That is why we intend to meet representatives from Sheffield, Wandsworth, Haringey, Islington, Hackney and Hammersmith. There are other authorities that we may also meet in making a final decision on the list that will emerge. I should make it clear that if the money that is available is to be effective we cannot, unfortunately, widen the list too far.

Mr. Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not only in industrial areas that the problem of deprivation arises, it being present in many rural areas? Is he aware that there has been a sad decline in a whole series of services, whether it be local transport, village


schools, building new roads or making improvements, helping the elderly and, unfortunately, the closing of many beds in cottage hospitals? Does he realise that a very real problem exists? Will he bear that in mind when considering the rate support grant for next year? Is he aware that many people in rural areas are coming to the conclusion that they are having to pay more and more to receive less and less?

Mr. Barnett: I am well aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, namely, that there is deprivation in rural areas. However, the Question is concerned with a very high concentration and intensity of deprivation that exists at the centres of some of our industrial cities. It is that with which we are primarily concerned. That is not to say that the problem does not exist in other areas, including the smaller cities and towns and rural areas.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware of the depth of feeling in Newcastle upon Tyne and the Tyneside and Wear-side area generally about the way in which his right hon. Friend's policy is developing? Will he give us an assurance that the point made to him will be seriously considered, namely, that the level of deprivation in the areas that I and others represent is at least as serious as in the areas chosen? Will he give some indication when he will come to a decision, as the delay is causing great uncertainty locally?

Mr. Barnett: I was not aware, from meeting representatives of Newcastle upon Tyne, or Tyne and Wear, of the depth of concern about the way in which my right hon. Friend's policy is developing, which is how my hon. Friend put it. I am aware of their depth of concern about the problems that exist in their areas. That concern was forcefully put to us in the meeting that they had with us. My right hon. Friend and I will come to a conclusion on the whole issue as soon as we can.

Mr. Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman be frank and acknowledge that the Government's White Paper indicates that there is little hope of practical help being given to the areas outside those that benefit under partnership agreements as defined

under the Government's criteria? Will he admit that the disappointment is justified in large parts of the industrial West Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire, which feel badly neglected under the policy?

Mr. Barnett: I would not admit that. The hon. Gentleman knows that the rate support grant is one means that the Government have used to try to recognise the problems of the areas that he has described. We have also made it clear in the White Paper that the main policies and programmes of the Government as a whole will try to recognise the new priority in inner city areas. The urban programme, which has been transferred to our Department, will also be available to assist areas where deprivation exists, though perhaps not on the scale that exists in the partnership cities and the others that may be selected for partnerships.

Water Authorities (Staff)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has issued to water authorities concerning the salary levels of employees and the number of staff employed, in the light of existing salaries and numbers.

Mr. Marks: Salary levels and staff establishments are matters for the internal management and negotiating procedures of the water industry itself, but we have made clear to water authorities the need to exercise restraint.

Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that rising water rates are resented? Does he accept that it is undesirable that an unelected body, which in practice is responsible to no one, should have absolute power? If salaries were excessive, perquisites were excessive and the provision of motor cars was excessive, am I right in supposing that the public would have no remedy and Ministers would have no responsibility?

Mr. Marks: If Ministers have no responsibility and if they have no powers except over the capital expenditure of the water authorities, it is because the Conservative Government enacted the Water Bill that took away those responsibilities from local authorities and from the Government. However, they are not


entirely unelected bodies. The majority of the members of regional water authorities are members of local councils. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will support what the Government have to say in the White Paper on the water industry, which we hope to publish soon.

Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only was it a Conservative Bill that caused these organisations to be instituted but that the rates have roughly doubled, because the cost of sewerage is included, and that about £100 million of rate support grant that otherwise would have gone from the Exchequer to support sewerage services is now no longer available to regional water authorities?

Mr. Marks: That is true. I hope that ratepayers will recognise that the sewerage element in their rates is now in the water rate and not in the general rate.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: The Government appear to have done precisely nothing, arising out of last summer's drought, to prevent a repetition. Does the hon. Gentleman expect a firm programme to be announced to meter water supplies in the forthcoming White Paper?

Mr. Marks: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is unable to be here this afternoon, will be most disappointed at the suggestion that he has done nothing about providing the necessary water. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, the Early-Day Motions from Members of the House, the Prayers and whoever answered them have provided the answer, to the extent that there is no danger of any shortage of water this year, even if we have fine weather for the rest of the summer.

Housing Policy Review

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the Housing Policy Review to be published.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now give a firm date for the publication of his housing finance review.

Mr. Shore: A Green Paper was published yesterday.

Mr. MacGregor: On the local authority aspects, is the Secretary of State aware that some—perhaps many—local authorities feel that they would be better able to meet the housing needs in their area if they were allowed to devote a little more resources to local authority mortgages and home improvements? This year many authorities, such as my own South Norfolk District Council, have been savagely cut back in these respects.
In the Secretary of State's proposals, with their emphasis on local authorities knowing their areas best, is it his intention to give them greater freedom of choice to make up their own minds on these aspects or, as he rather suggested in answer to an earlier question, still to carry on with central Government diktat?

Mr. Shore: Not exactly diktat, but we are embarking on this new approach to local housing expenditure and local housing plans. We gave a degree of virement between different previously restricted separate categories of housing expenditure in 1977–78, and I hope to broaden that in the period ahead, 1978–79.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome what was said yesterday, and the Green Paper, but is it the Secretary of State's intention to wait until after November before making any changes in the rateable value and cost limits of improvement grants? Cannot we have that decision speedily?

Mr. Shore: We are prepared to look at individual cases. I should not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman and to say that I was intending to change this before we have had time to receive the general comments that we have now invited from the public and from all those concerned with the Green Paper. On the other hand, I am not necessarily saying that we have to have everything in before we can make a decision on this matter.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider bringing together the new housing people in the Greater London Council and representatives of the Ealing and Hillingdon Councils concerning the Willow Tree Lane project? If that development had gone through, it would have been a massive contribution to easing the very severe housing problem in that part of London, particularly in the Middlesex area, but the new GLC has decided not to proceed.


This means that there are literally thousands of people who might have been rehoused in a few years' time and who will not now be rehoused, because of the Tory policy on the GLC.

Mr. Shore: I am indeed concerned about the apparently wholesale cancellation of GLC projects in outer London. We shall be studying these proposals with great anxiety as they come forward. I shall consider what my hon. Friend said. If he would like to write to me giving me more details of this, I shall certainly give him a reply.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Secretary of State specifically repudiate the persistent suggestion by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that there should be new statutory controls over the building societies requiring them to lend to any particular class of person or in respect of any particular class of property? Will the Secretary of State confirm that any such proposals would only lead to suggestions from the building societies that the State should reimburse them for bad debts, and from that to proposals for the nationalisation of the building societies?

Mr. Frank Allaun: They have had £500 million.

Mr. Shore: What my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is concerned about—and this represents the views of everyone on the Government side and a good many Opposition Members—is that there are classes of people—and classes of property—who have not been served as well in the past by building societies as we would wish. It is precisely those people whom we are trying to help. I believe that we can get a considerable way with the building societies through the kinds of arrangements that I have already discussed with the House.

Docklands (London)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has now had concerning the distribution of the £17 million available for dockland redevelopment in London.

Mr. Shore: The Docklands Joint Committee and the constituent authorities agreed a programme of projects at their

meeting on 21st June. This has just been submitted to me and I am considering it urgently.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. As Mr. Percy Bell has now resigned as chairman of the Docklands Joint Committee, which now has Sir Hugh Wilson as its independent chairman, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this indicates a consistent policy of the new GLC and no change in direction?
Will my right hon. Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services concerning the closure of Plaistow Maternity Hospital, which is in dockland, an area where we hope to have 20,000 new inhabitants in the next five or six years?

Mr. Shore: I know my hon. Friend's intense interest in the whole dockland development, but he will appreciate that, while I well understand the anxieties and worries experienced over the closure of the Plaistow Maternity Hospital—it happens also in my own part of East London—that really is a question for my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
As for the wider issue of continuity of policy in the Docklands Joint Committee, it would be ridiculous to pretend that there will not be differences between the new incumbents of County Hall and their predecessors. Of course there will. But I very much hope that the interests of dockland will be judged in a sober way and that every effort will be made to carry forward the work of the Docklands Joint Committee.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to confirm that the sum of £17 million and other support for the dockland programme is central Government funded money and not just an authority for the GLC to spend its own money?

Mr. Shore: What we have said is that £17 million of increased public expenditure would be authorised in dockland in the period up to the introduction of the proper inner city grant. That will comprise local and central Government expenditure. But if the money comes under the urban programme, the central Government will finance 75 per cent. of


any project. If it comes under housing programmes, it will be over 60 per cent., as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Government Offices (Expenditure)

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the expenditure on Government office accommodation during the current year by the Property Services Agency.

Mr. Marks: The estimate is about £250 million on office rents, new construction, furniture, and maintenance.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Minister aware that that figure is to some extent misleading, because about 60 per cent. of the office property held by the Property Services Agency is held on old leases, where the rent payable does not represent the full value? Does he accept, therefore, that it would be advantageous for his Department and also for all Government Departments occupying office premises if they were made aware of the true cost of the space they occupy?

Mr. Marks: The true cost to the Government is the rent being paid now. It is true that certain leases are ending and that people are moving into newly-built Crown buildings or other rented property. The £250 million is rather different from the figure in the Supply Estimates, because it does not include spscialised accommodation, such as prisons, courts, and so on.

Rented Accommodation

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on recent movements in the supply of private rented accommodation in the urban areas.

Mr. Armstrong: Some indications can be gained from recent studies and I shall be glad to write to the hon. Gentleman about these.

Mr. Grant: I welcome the somewhat timid remarks of the Secretary of State in the House yesterday on the private rented sector, but does the Minister realise that the rigidity of the law of tenure of private rented property has been a greater cause of homelessness than almost anything else in our society?
In 1977, when there are grown-up people wishing to rent for a short period,

particularly in the urban areas, why on earth should not they be allowed to do so?

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one factor among many which have affected the private rented sector. They are being carefully considered in our Rent Act review.

Oral Answers to Questions — Housing Finance

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains satisfied that the present system of allocating resources to local authorities for house building and improvement is meeting the housing needs of areas with serious housing stress.

Mr. Armstrong: Areas with serious housing stress are receiving first priority under the current arrangements for allocating resources. This will continue under the new system of housing strategies and investment programmes, to be introduced next year, which will enable us to allocate resources according to local comprehensive assessments of housing need.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister accept that much of what has been said about the housing review is for the long term? Does he agree that in areas of stress there is a need to get ahead with the building programme and to create employment in the construction industry? Does he see any possibility of an improvement in that situation in the near future?

Mr. Armstrong: The Secretary of State has referred to the improvements for which he is looking. I suggest to my hon. Friend that in the allocations made to stress areas the Secretary of State has recognised this problem. The Government are well aware of it and are anxious that resources should go where they are most desperately needed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to make an appeal to the House before I call the statement. We have a half-day Supply debate and a considerable number of hon. Members wish to speak in it. There is a Ten-Minute Bill and there are several applications under Standing Order No. 9. Therefore, I shall not be able to allow as long on the statements for supplementary questions as I would normally. I must be fair to those who wish to take part in the Supply debate.

EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
One of the most disturbing results of the current recession has been the very large increase in youth unemployment, which can have lasting effects on the personal development and outlook of young people.
Youth unemployment remains un-acceptably high and is likely to remain high for some time to come. This is of serious concern to the Government. We have therefore decided that the Manpower Services Commission should be asked to operate a new programme of opportunities for unemployed young people on the lines of the proposals the Commission put to us based on the excellent report of its working party. In reaching this decision we have also taken into account the relevant report on the job creation programme of the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee and comments made by hon. Members in the debate on 24th May and by many others.
The new programme will draw together and build on existing schemes for young people. It meets the criticism that existing provisions do not provide adequate training for young people by integrating a series of measures for unemployed young people in the 16–18 age group which will provide them with a combination of training and work experience. These will be run to fit the needs of individuals, with the purpose of improving their prospects of obtaining a satisfactory permanent job at the earliest possible moment.
There will be a maximum of 130,000 places on the programme, with opportunities being given to over 230,000 young people a year. This is about double the provision under the present schemes and corresponds to the assessment of the need made by the Manpower Services Commission. The Manpower Services Commission and Government will review the size of the total programme annually against the prospects for youth unemployment. In drawing up the programme account has been taken of the possibility of assistance from the European Social Fund.
We shall want to ensure that places go to those who most need them. Summer school leavers will be considered for places from September, and it is our firm intention that no summer or Easter school leavers who remain unemployed the following Easter should remain without the offer of a place under the programme. The Government will ensure that the necessary resources are available for this purpose, and the MSC will arrange the programme accordingly, making such special provision as is necessary.
About one-third of the young people who join the unemployment register leave it within one month, and we would not wish the programme to disrupt the normal flow of young people into permanent jobs. We therefore intend that places should go only to those young people who have been unemployed for at least six weeks, and the emphasis will be on those who are the least qualified with the poorest employment prospects. It will be important to ensure that the programme caters adequately for girls in this category.
The work experience courses for young people will last, in general, for up to 12 months but, taking account of the Expenditure Sub-Committee's report, we have asked the MSC to operate this rule with some flexibility for individual young people with no permanent job to go to in areas of high youth unemployment.
All young people on courses under the programme will be paid an allowance of £18 a week. This includes £2 for travel expenses with a discretion to pay more in exceptional circumstances.
The new programme will require increased provision for education and training and we shall be making resources available through the programme to meet the extra costs to the education service. In view of the extra work that will fall on it, we shall also be providing more support from central funds for the Careers Service, which has made an excellent contribution against the odds. Initially, we shall be providing an additional 170 unemployment specialist posts, on top of the extra 320 posts already agreed, and a new allowance for clerical support in respect of all these posts. To ensure that the Careers Service can maintain high standards, we shall keep


its staff requirements under close review as the programme develops.
The programme will be in full operation by September 1978 and will cost about £160 million a year when it is fully in operation. Taking account of savings in unemployment benefit and so on, the net costs are about 60 per cent. of the gross cost.
Preparations for the new programme will begin immediately. There will be a progressive build up of places in train-ning and work preparation courses from this coming September. The work experience programme will continue into the new programme and, to ease the transition, the job creation programme will be extended for applications until the end of 1977, after which applications under the new arrangements will be received. There will be over 30,000 extra places available under the current schemes this autumn compared with last year.
In addition to the places in further education colleges required by the MSC programme, there will be a complementary education programme to enable more school leavers to continue their education. Resources will be made available to enable local education authorities throughout Great Britain to provide an additional 10,000 places in further education over and above present projections for 1980–81. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be providing further details shortly.
We have decided that the youth employment subsidy scheme should be extended to 31st March 1978 when it will end. To improve the provisions for young people in advance of the full implementation of the MSC programme, I would urge employers to make greater use of this scheme.
I turn now to measures for adults. We announced earlier this year the extension of the temporary employment subsidy until 31st March 1978, and the introduction of the temporary employment (supplement) scheme, and the experimental small firms employment subsidy which comes into operation this week.
The other two existing special measures for adults are the job creation programme and the job release scheme. The Man-

power Services Commission has proposed that the job creation programme should be replaced on 1st April 1978 by two separate forms of provision for adults. The first would provide 8,000 places for adults from the unemployment register who would be employed as supervisors and instructors on work experience schemes under the programme for young people. The second would be known as the special temporary employment programme—STEP—and would provide temporary employment opportunities of up to 12 months for those aged 19 and over.
The Government have agreed to these proposals. We have asked the MSC to build up the number of places under the new STEP programme to 25,000. The resources will be concentrated on localities with exceptionally severe unemployment problems. Places will go to groups who have been particularly hard hit by the current recession. Priority will be given to maintaining the number of places currently provided under JCP for the 19–24 age group, whose unemployment rate is well above the average, and to increasing assistance to those aged 25 and over who have been unemployed for over 12 months. There has been a marked increase in the number of the long-term unemployed, many of them heads of families, and the new STEP programme will provide many more temporary employment opportunities for them.
Adults under the two new schemes will be paid the rate for the job subject to a defined maximum. The cost of STEP when it is fully in operation will be £68 million a year. Taking account of savings of unemployment benefit, the net cost is about one-third of the gross cost.
We introduced the job release scheme on 3rd January, and it is due to end tomorrow. About 20,000 applications will have been approved by then. We have decided that the scheme should be extended to 31st March 1978 but, taking account of criticisms made in the House, that from 1st July it should apply only to those in employment in the assisted areas. The cost of the extension is about £8 million. The net cost is about one-third of the gross cost.
The measures I have announced today reflect our determination to continue to mitigate the worst effects of high levels of unemployment, especially for young people at the beginning of their working


lives. The new programme of opportunities for young people represents a major step forward in tackling the problem of youth unemployment. It demonstrates our concern, which I know the whole House shares, that we should not abandon young people who cannot find jobs, with the depressing prospect of long spells of unemployment, but should provide them with opportunities to improve their prospects of obtaining permanent jobs.

Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that his statement indicates the seriousness with which the whole House and the country view the problem of youth unemployment? Is he further aware that the Conservatives consider that there are other ways to help to achieve higher employment and perhaps extra production and wealth creation for society? Nevertheless, we believe that these schemes are to be welcomed as a contribution to solving the problem, and that it is important that everybody who has not a job when leaving school should have a chance to obtain a job under one of these schemes. Therefore we welcome that part of his statement.
Does the Minister appreciate that there is a great need to ensure that these schemes provide a link with longer-term employment, and that they should not be used merely as a way of putting off the evil day of unemployment for a year or 18 months? Does he also appreciate that we welcome the additional help given under the further education college arrangements entered into with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Will both Ministers do everything they can to ensure that there is no bureaucratic wastage in what the MSC is doing, on the one hand, and action taken by education authorities on the other? We also welcome the changes made to the job release scheme in view of what has been said in the House on this subject on previous occasions, and we welcome the fact that the European Social Fund will be assisting the scheme. Has he any idea of the amount of help that will be available?
Finally, are the Minister and the House aware that the Conservatice Party will give support to any scheme which will enable young people to find jobs but that we want to see them in worthwhile

jobs? We should all play our part in creating the publicity that will encourage people to take jobs instead of remaining idle on the streets.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I agree with him that my statement illustrates the seriousnes with which we regard youth unemployment. I also agree that there are other ways in which unemployment can be tackled. I also agree that it is necessary for these schemes to be directly related to permanent employment which will follow. I assure him that these schemes have been designed with that end very much in mind—namely, preparing people for work and giving them work experience. They contain important elements relating to job opportunities.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I will do all we can to ensure that there is no bureaucratic wastage, as the right hon. Gentleman called it, in the activities of our Departments in so far as they overlap substantially in the measures I have announced. To that end we have asked the MSC to consult local authorities, and they are working on this matter to ensure that schemes run effectively in combination in their respective areas.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be welcomed on the Liberal Benches and that we wish to compliment the Government on the steps they have taken? Will he take note of the necessity to ensure that existing facilities in technical colleges are used not merely in educational training but in Manpower Services training programmes? Will he agree that the Government need a long-term solution to youth unemployment, in addition to the measures which he has now put before the House? Will he, for example, consider increasing public expenditure in cases where such money would result in the creation of more jobs for school leavers?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of calling together Members of all parties in the House who profess to be concerned about youth unemployment, with a view to seeing whether there can be some kind of national drive among employers? Should we not seek to urge those employers, on


a regional basis, to consider whether private industry could create more job opportunities for school leavers?

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. I give him an undertaking that we shall ensure that technical college facilities are used by both the MSC and education authorities in facilitating and developing this programme. In many areas this is already happening, but we shall examine other areas to see whether there is further scope for such arrangements. We regard the programme as long-term in comparison with the projects which it will replace.
We have given an undertaking that we shall review the situation from year to year, but the projections on which the calculations are made run five years ahead. We shall examine within this programme what can be done by way of special projects in community service and in the public service area. There is room within the programme for that aspect. I shall consult with other parties, because I would welcome a joint party appeal to employers to support us in this programme. The matter cannot be left to the MSC and the two Government Departments now involved but will require the support of a number of sections of the community, including employers.

Mr. Madden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but is he aware that the TUC and trade union movement are deeply convinced that the only effective way of tackling unemployment is the early expansion of the economy and the restoration of cuts in public expenditure? Will he confirm that the Manpower Services Commission is being charged with the responsibility of spearheading the coordination of the schemes he has outlined this afternoon, and will he say what steps he is taking to monitor and increase the training content of all these schemes? We accept that if the schemes are to be worth while they must provide for proper and adequate training. What is he doing about that aspect?

Mr. Booth: If I may deal with my hon. Friend's last supplementary question, we have ensured that all seven different elements of the programme will have a

high training requirement. They are a blend of work experience and job preparation. That meets a wide criticism of a narrow area of the previous projects. As regard the attitudes of the trade union movement, I am well aware that the movement would not regard any measure of this sort as being the total answer to the unemployment problem. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I met TUC representatives at Congress House, who confirmed their support for the programme, and we have also discussed it with the CBI. I am conscious that it has broad trade union support, which I very much welcome.

Mr. Crawford: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement, as it relates to Scotland, though welcome, contains proposals which are far too little and far too late, and that the real way in which the problem can be solved in Scotland is by an increase in the budget of the Scottish Development Agency to £300 million a year? Is he aware that unless this is done, Scotland will be the only country in the world to have found oil in its waters and to have become economically the poorer for it?

Mr. Booth: My examination of the job effects of the discovery of Scottish oil does not lead me to believe that that will solve the unemployment problems of Scotland for a long time in the future. Unfortunately, it produces a hump of requirement for employment which then falls away.
As to our measures being too little, too late, I would point out that they are doubling the existing high provision and this, arguably, puts us in a position to say that we are making greater provision on youth unemployment than any other country in Europe.

Mr. McCusker: Will the Secretary of State ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make an early statement indicating whether he proposes to introduce corresponding measures in the Province?

Mr. Booth: In developing this programme with the Manpower Services Commission, I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, I assure the House is anxious to bring every possible measure to bear on unemployment there. I shall be very surprised if there are any


measures that we have proposed here which he will not wish to see made effective in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hardy: Given the urgent need, my right hon. Friend's announcement is to be welcomed, but is he sure that the adverse effect on school sixth forms which certain newspapers were predicting last week will not apply? Second, could my right hon. Friend publish in the Official Report his estimate of the benefit which each region will receive?

Mr. Booth: It is difficult to publish an estimate of the benefit which each region will receive because we are giving the undertaking, in introducing the programme, that we shall devote the resources on the basis of the youth unemployment levels of the areas.
It follows logically that wherever youth unemployment is highest, the greatest funds will flow and the greatest effort of the programme will flow.
I have discussed the position of sixth-formers with my right hon. Friend, and with that in view we have arranged to time the introduction of the various phases of the programme and the recruitment periods to ensure that these will not adversely affect sixth-formers. The major intake into the programme will take place after September when most sixth-formers have made their decisions to continue.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State accept our welcome to this scheme as a step towards integrated manpower planning? Will he comment more on the STEP proposals, particularly in view of the restrictions on job creation, in that it cannot be applied to such subjects as housing or education projects since it comes within other budgets? Will the same restrictions apply to STEP or will it be more flexible?

Mr. Booth: In the case of the STEP programme for adults we shall be seeking to give greater vocational guidance directed to the particular needs of the longer-term unemployed. That is why we are aiming at this increase in the number of places.
We shall also seek to ensure that in servicing the vocational support schemes for the longer-term unemployed we shall get a feedback of information which will

enable us to see how far the job creation elements can meet the particular requirements of long-term unemployed. We do not want to stamp long-term unemployed as a particular class of people. We do not regard them in that way. We realise that they have individual needs, that some of them would benefit from retraining and that some will need other forms of assistance. For those reasons, we are certain that it is right to give priority to the longer-term adult unemployed over 25 and to examine their needs in order to achieve a proper balance between training provision and job creation provision.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Under the Manpower Services Commission programme, is there a fixed maximum time limit when young people can be employed?

Mr. Booth: There has been a general limit on job creation of one year maximum. Under this programme we are asking the MSC to operate with a certain degree of flexibility in those areas where there is very high youth unemployment, so that in certain special cases youngsters can be retrained in certain parts of the programme for more than 12 months.

Mr. John Mendelson: When the Secretary of State quotes support from the General Council of the TUC for the measures which he has announced, that will only reflect the view of all those who are clear about these problems that the Secretary of State is doing a great deal and that he shows the fullest understanding of the gravity of the problem. But it does not in any way diminish the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend that when one sees the OECD report predicting large-scale and increasing long-term unemployment, the Secretary of State can only adopt these palliative measures with the best of intentions but must persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to change our economic strategy if the problem is to be met.
In the specific field with which he has to deal, will the Secretary of State make some comment on the report of youth employment officers in recent months that a number of employers are dismissing people at the age of 18 or 18½ when they have become entitled to the full wage, after they have used them when they did not have to pay the full wage? Will his Department take measures to see that that is stopped?

Mr. Booth: One of the reasons why a guarantee of six months' employment was attached to the youth employment subsidy scheme was to ensure that those who entered it had the essential protections of the Employment Protection Act against unfair dismissal.
As to the approach of the OECD, that report backs our own experience that part of the youth employment problem is structural and demographic and that it would be necessary to have special regard to that even if we did not have the major problem of recession.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call two more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Steen: Does the Minister realise that this new scheme is yet another way over the past 18 months on which he has spent £700 million, and would he tell the House what he is planning to do for the 100,000 or so young people who will be the hard-core unemployed young people, drawing the dole and with nothing to do?

Mr. Booth: I cannot agree that one more scheme to be added to many schemes is an appropriate description. One of the special aspects of the programme which I am announcing is that it meets the criticism very largely that we have been running a lot of separate schemes which are not sufficiently integrated and do not take an overall look at the youth employment problem. This programme integrates very closely seven schemes. I think that it is entitled to be viewed in that way.
As to the 100,000 hard-core—or the higher number which was indicated by the Holland Report—I think we have met that by preparing a programme which, when fully in operation, will offer to all youngsters who have been without a job from the previous summer or Easter school leaving dates an opportunity to participate in a part of this programme by the following Easter. Therefore, it would be unthinkable, with this programme in operation, that there could be anything like that number who were without some opportunity to be trained or to take further education or work experience within 12 months of leaving school.

Mr. Craigen: Is the Secretary of State discussing with employers and the industrial training boards the problem of the contraction in the number of proper apprenticeships for young men and women in industry—a problem particularly important in development areas? Taking the longer-term view of labour demand, is he seriously looking at the possibilities of earlier retirement, of a shorter working week and longer holidays, and discussing this with his EEC counterparts?

Mr. Booth: I announced today that we are extending the job swap scheme in respect of employed people only for a further period. I do not claim that this is more than an experimental scheme. It does not fully meet the whole question of what contribution can be made to reducing unemployment by earlier retirement, longer holidays, a shorter working week or keeping youngsters longer at school, but it is something which we must continue to examine. We are dealing in another way with the problem of maintaining the intake of youngsters into apprenticeships. Under the training awards scheme, which we operate through the Training Services Agency and the industrial training boards, we are funding up to 60,000 apprenticeships in industry with the aim of maintaining the level of intake into industry in that way up to the pre-recession level.

Mr. Younger: Has the Secretary of State offered any funds from the job creation scheme to his right hon. Friends to help with the employment of young teachers as supernumerary teachers in deprived areas, thus enabling them to complete the probation period without which their professional qualification is not complete?

Mr. Booth: Under the job creation scheme I have arranged with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that we shall provide certain money for retraining teachers who are unable to obtain jobs in their particular qualifications, to train them to obtain jobs where there are vacancies. We are therefore prepared to consider other applications of the same principle, including that to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred.

Mr. Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the representatives of all the


Opposition parties have remarked upon and welcomed his statement although it was principally they—including the Liberals, I may say—who were calling for massive cuts in public expenditure only two years ago? It has been the cuts in public expenditure which have created most of the problem with which my right hon. Friend is now confronted, so will he learn the lesson from this, restore the cuts and intervene positively in the economy instead of having to introduce make-do-and-mend Lib-Lab policies as he has had to do today?

Mr. Booth: I welcome widespread support for measures which help to deal with youth unemployment, but, particularly in our present parliamentary situation, I cannot pick and choose too closely among our supporters on the basis of whether their attitudes on public expenditure generally are consistent with what they advocate on particular problems of youth unemployment.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS MEETING)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Ministers which was held in Luxembourg on Monday 27th June and chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The main issues which were discussed were the internal fishery arrangements for the common fisheries policy and the conservation of certain herring stocks. Among other issues considered were the allocation of catch quotas in Norwegian northern waters, the allocation of quotas to Spain, and membership of the International Commission for North-West Atlantic Fisheries.
On the common fisheries policy, I made it clear to the Council that the internal régime is a matter of the greatest political and economic importance to the United Kingdom and that the proposal which the Commission has so far made did not represent a satisfactory oasis of agreement for us. I indicated that the basis of the United Kingdom position is that we are bringing to the Community

a major proportion of the total fish resources and that this contribution must be fully recognised and be seen in relation to other important aspects, including the heavy losses which we are suffering in distant waters.
I reminded the Council of the proposal for a variable coastal belt up to 50 miles which my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made to it in May of last year. I made it clear that this proposal remained on the table. I indicated, however, that we were willing to look at other ways in which our essential needs might be met, so long as they provided our fishermen with an assured future and ensured that the fish stocks were properly conserved. I then outlined a proposal for dealing with the coastal band up to 50 miles on the lines indicated by my right hon. Friend in the debate on fisheries on Thursday of last week, involving an exclusive limit of 12 miles and a dominant preference in the area from 12 to 50 miles.
There was a useful discussion which appeared to reflect some willingness on the part of some member States to recognise our essential requirements. Discussion of the internal fisheries régime will be resumed at the Council Meeting on 18th July.
The Council also considered the measures necessary to conserve the herring stocks in a number of areas. In the case of the Irish Sea stock, it was agreed that consideration of the Commission's proposals should be deferred until there has been an opportunity for discussion with the Irish authorities and the Isle of Man Government about the management of this stock.
Further consideration was given to the West of Scotland stock. The Commission again put forward a proposal for a quota allocation but on the basis of a much reduced total allowable catch. We supported this proposal on the ground that it took account of the latest scientific evidence on the stock and also because the proposed distribution of the total catch among member States reflected out dominant interest in the stock. We were successful in getting agreement to the introduction of this quota allocation, subject, however, to an Irish reserve which will allow the new Irish Government time


to consider the matter further. The present ban on the fishing of the stock will continue until 20th July.
The introduction of this quota arrangement, under which more than 70 per cent. of the total allowable catches to members of the Community is allocated to the United Kingdom, will provide useful fishing opportunities for our industry during the remainder of the year without risking the possibility of further serious damage to the stock.
The Commission's proposal for a continuation of the ban on the North Sea herring stock led to a long and particularly difficult discussion. I made it clear to the Council that, in our view, the scientific evidence was quite unassailable and that there could be no alternative to a further ban if we were not to run the risk of exterminating the stock. No agreement was reached on this point. I therefore felt it necessary to tell the Council that, in the absence of Community agreement, we had no choice but to consider taking national non-discriminatory measures in terms of the Hague Agreement.
We are now in touch with the Commission with a view to putting in hand the necessary steps to continue the ban on directed fishing for herring in the North Sea within our 200-mile limits for the rest of this year.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although it will mean hardship for the Scottish herring fleet and fish processors, will the Secretary of State accept that he will have the support of the Opposition if, as seems to be the case, he proposes to introduce a ban on herring fishing in the North Sea, which is necessary if the stocks are to be saved from such ruthless decimation as has been suffered along the shores of some other EEC States? However, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we have the resources in fishery protection vessels and aircraft to supervise such a wide area? Can he give a clear assurance that the ban will be backed up by the most intensive policing, including, where necessary, boarding and the checking of by-catches?
On the other hand, will the Secretary of State take it that we deplore the Government's decision to abandon the demand for an exclusive 50-miles management zone, on which the industry is united and on which the House appeared to be united

only last Thursday, despite having received no apparent concession on any issue—in particular, added scope for our trawlers in areas such as Iceland, the Faroes and Norway? As the Government now seem willing to come to a settlement on dominant preference in the 12- to 50-miles zone, can the Secretary of State at least give an assurance that the catch allocation will be based not on quotas, in which the industry has entirely lost confidence, but on licensing and therefore restriction?
Finally, as the industry is vital for Scotland and for Britain, can the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that he will make no further retreats or sell-outs unless he obtains comparable safeguards for the future of the industry?

Mr. Millan: If there were any sell-out of the British fishing industry, it took place several years ago, under the previous Tory Government. There has been no sell-out, and the proposals which I made on Monday were exactly in line with the proposals described to the House by my right hon. Friend and myself during the debate last Thursday. I note that the hon. Gentleman is careful to talk about an exclusive 50-miles management zone. What we are talking about here is a fishing zone, not just a management zone. That is what we are concerned about, because it is the amount of fish which we are able to get out of the 200 miles of Community waters as a whole and also what we can get from third-country waters which, at the end of the day, is the essential consideration.
We have, in fact, never asked for a 50-miles exclusive fishing zone because that would not make sense in terms of the needs of our industry. For certain species we can get more than our needs within 50 miles and we have to be willing to trade off the surplus fish within that area for fishing opportunities elsewhere including, of course, fishing opportunities in third countries such as the Faroes and Norway.
What my right hon. Friend did in May 1976 was to talk about a variable belt of no less than 12 miles but in some places up to 50 miles. The proposals that I have put forward on Monday are a development of that which, I believe, will give even better assurances for our own industry. I also believe that it is a development on which we can make


progress in the negotiations with the Community.
With regard to the herring ban, of course the necessary arrangements will be made as soon as the present ban runs out at the end of this month. We want the new ban to operate from 1st July. I am confident that the other nations of the Community will see that their own fishing vessels respect the ban, which is, of course, perfectly legal. But apart from that, we shall see that the necessary enforcement measures are taken—if that is necessary.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman define further the new concept of preference which has been introduced into this matter? While, of course, this country has never claimed that it would exclude all other fishermen from a zone of 50 miles or anywhere else, will he make it clear that what is essential for this country is the control and determination of the catch and quotas up to at least 50 miles around our coasts and that there will be no relaxation of that minimum requirement for the British fishing industry?

Mr. Millan: An essential requirement for the British fishing industry is that we have effective enforcement and satisfactory quotas, backed up by licences, for the whole of our 200-miles limit and not just for the 50-miles limit. That is extremely important because we can get most of our requirements within 50 miles. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that we need a satisfactory agreement for the rest of the 200-miles zone as well.
I made it perfectly clear on Monday that any arrangement, whether of quotas, licences or whatever, would have to take account of the fact that we contribute about 60 per cent. of the total fish resources available to the Community. Any allocations to our industry must fully reflect that fact.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposals for a total ban on North Sea herring fishing will close the herring processing industry in Shetland indefinitely? How is it that the Dutch have a special concession of 1,500 tonnes for festival when Shetland, with a far more telling case, cannot get an allocation of 200 or 300 tonnes for a vital industry? Even if the Shetland boats can go to the West Coast, no herring will reach the Shetlands in any form. We

demand to keep our ain fish guts for our ain sea maas.

Mr. Millan: What the right hon. Gentleman, the House and the industry as a whole must face up to is whether we are serious about conservation. We are serious about conservation. I argued that the North Sea herring ban was the first test for the Community on conservation. I am sorry to say that that test was not met by the other members of the Community. But we are serious about herring conservation.
Figures show that as recently as 1972 the herring catch in the North Sea was 500,000 tonnes. Last year that went down to 169,000 tonnes. If we do not have adequate conservation measures the stock will be completely fished out and there will be no fish at all either for our own fishing industry or for our processing industry. I have also met representatives of the processing industry.
However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that even if it had been legitimate on conservation grounds—which it would not have been—there was no way in which we could negotiate some special arrangement for the Shetlands in the negotiations that we had at the beginning of the week. Representatives of the Scottish herring industry, who were present at Luxembourg on Monday, at least accepted that fact.

Mr. James Johnson: I shall forget the nonsense about a sell-out and refer to the total unity in this Chamber last week when we all wished to have a 50-miles exclusive economic zone. Is it not a fact that the Government's position has slightly shifted? We are now speaking of a 12-miles exclusive zone with another belt of 12 to 50 miles in which we are in a preferential position. Is that not different from what the Foreign Office said some time ago when it talked of a 50-miles belt or zone which contained within it East Yorkshire, West Scotland and the South-West peninsula?

Mr. Millan: I am surprised at my hon. Friend. At no time have the British Government asked for a 50-miles exclusive fishing zone. The proposals put forward in May 1976 were for a variable belt as little as 12 miles in certain places and up to 50 miles in other places. That was the


previous proposal. It has never been the policy of the Government to ask for a 50-miles exclusive fishing zone. What we have said is that we must have first call on the resources within 50 miles.
I believe that the proposals which I put forward on Monday are better proposals for the British fishing industry than those put forward by my right hon. Friend in May of last year. I also believe that my proposals provide a better basis for negotiation.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that Commissioner Gundelach at a meeting in North-East Scotland last Friday attended by all strands of the fishing industry, in the face of a united demand for a 50-miles exclusive zone and warnings of the dire social consequences that would befall the United Kingdom if we did not obtain it, nevertheless showed an implacable opposition to the concept of the United Kingdom obtaining it? In those circumstances, is unilateral action ruled out by the Government? Will the Secretary of State consider the excellent suggestion which came from a young fisherman in the body of the hall to Commissioner Gundelach that we should try a 50-miles zone for five years to see the benefit of conservation of stocks? I urge the Government to consider unilateral action.

Mr. Millan: I have already made it clear that I believe that the 50-miles zone is the most important economic zone for the British fishing industry. But it is not the only zone, with all respect. We had numerous arguments in this House in earlier debates about Icelandic fisheries, for example. Any agreement that we would be able to reach with Iceland would depend on reciprocal arrangements allowing the Icelanders to fish within certain waters within our 200-miles zone. The same applies to the Norwegians and the Faroese.
We must not forget the very important fish resources available within the 50 to 200 miles for our own national interests. Therefore, it is not enough for the British fishing industry to concentrate exclusively on a 50-mile exclusive limit. When it comes down to the definition of what this would mean, no one has seriously suggested that no one, apart from British fishermen, should fish within the

50-miles limit. That does not make sense in terms of the overall requirements for our fishing industry.
I repeat that the proposals outlined in the House during the fisheries debate last Thursday, and which I repeated at Luxembourg on Monday in exactly the same terms, provide a far better opportunity for us to get an acceptable solution to this very difficult problem.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call the six hon. Members who have been standing and then we shall have to move on.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while there will be disappointment among fishermen with regard to the North Sea ban, there will nevertheless be a welcome for the fact that he is prepared to take resolute action to conserve stocks? Is he also aware that the test for the EEC will be how the other countries respect this ban? Since the major issue is whether quotas or arrangements can stand, if the other Community countries fail to accept and agree to the ban that my right hon. Friend has proposed, the whole of the common fisheries policy will disappear.
Will my right hon. Friend stress to our partners that failure to accommodate the genuine essential interests of the British fishing industry will have repercussions in the Common Market far beyond the fishing policy itself?

Mr. Millan: I have already made it clear, as has my right hon. Friend on numerous occasions, that we consider this an essential British interest and that we are negotiating accordingly in our discussions with our partners in the Community. There is no question of the other nations of the Community having to agree to this ban. When we have imposed it. there will be a legal obligation on them to abide by it, and I would expect them to do so.

Mr. Rippon: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the Government are fully justified in taking the strongest possible stand on this matter on the basis of the statement that I made to the House of Commons on behalf of the then Conservative Government on 15th December 1971, a statement which naturally the Labour Government did not


have to renegotiate? Does he accept that that fully justifies the Government in being perfectly firm on conservation measures and access?

Mr. Millan: I am glad to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's approval for what I have announced today. However, at the moment, out of kindness, I shall refrain from commenting on his record on fisheries policy generally.

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend took those last words right out of my mouth. Does he accept that, despite the problems which will especially face people in Shetland, there will be a general welcome for the forthright declaration of a unilateral ban within the 200-miles limit, because the long-term effect is much more important than our immediate needs? I hope that other Ministers involved in Brussels will follow this forthright lead in other matters. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), on behalf of the Scottish National Party, also endorsed the view on variable belts up to 50 miles in a letter to the Commission last year?
However, will my right hon. Friend define what he means by the word "dominant"? Does it mean that beyond 12 miles we shall control the situation and decide whether other countries should have the right to fish or otherwise? This surely is the issue.

Mr. Millan: There has to be Community agreement under the terms of the common fisheries policy. I said that we should have first call on the resources up to 50 miles and priority fishing in these areas. That is the basis on which we shall be negotiating.

Mr. Warren: Is not the Secretary of State setting up the British fishing industry for yet another sell-out? Does he accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the Government were negotiating for an exclusive 50-miles limit?

Mr. Millan: I can only repeat what I said earlier. I ask the hon. Gentleman and everyone else to re-read the statement that was made in May 1976, which

was endorsed by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman last Thursday.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between a variable 50-miles limit and an exclusive 12-miles limit. Has he accepted the figure of 12 miles? In certain areas in the South-West it would make a considerable difference if, instead of saying 12 miles and accepting 12 miles, we had said 15 miles or even 20 miles. Has he already conceded that 12 miles is it? Whatever figure he has conceded or will stand by, will it be absolutely exclusive within the 12 miles, 15 miles or whatever the distance is, with no other rights, traditional or otherwise?

Mr. Millan: I can only repeat what was said last week. Within the 12 miles we would want to get to the situation of having exclusive fishing for coastal States. There are certain problems relating to historical fishing rights at which we have to look. The 12-miles limit has a certain currency not only within the Community but elsewhere. It seems sensible in the first instance to look at a 12-miles limit and to get a satisfactory solution for that in the wider context of looking at the 50-miles limit as a whole. However, that would not exclude arrangements which would effectively meet the point which the hon. Gentleman has legitimately put forward.

Mr. Wall: As the EEC Commissioners have always indicated that in the long term they would be prepared to concede an exclusive 12-miles limit, plus a special British preference interest in the outer zone, has not the Secretary of State, by announcing these terms, having paid lip-service to an exclusive 50-miles limit, let down our fishing industry and gravely damaged its future?

Mr. Millan: I repeat, we have never argued for an exclusive 50-miles limit. If the hon. Gentleman had been in Luxembourg on Monday he would not have got the impression that the statement that I then made was looked upon by the members of the Community as a weakening of the British position. It is not a weakening of the British position. I made that absolutely clear there and I make it absolutely clear here, too.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation at Grunwick with particular reference to the decision of the London district council of the Union of Post Office Workers to ban all movement of mail to and from Grunwick.
The Standing Order requires that the matter should be specific, urgent and important. I do not think that I need persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is specific, because it plainly is, nor that it is important, because again it plainly is.
Certain aspects of this subject are within the consideration of the courts and it would therefore be wrong that they should be debated in the House. But on other aspects, which are in no way before the courts, which are of the highest national importance and which are being discussed and commented upon in every newspaper in the country and in countless broadcast programmes, I submit that it would be unacceptable that the House should not be heard. I think that that sentiment will command the approval of the House, whatever view hon. Members take of the merits of the issue.
The particular matter to which I have referred in my notice arose out of a decision taken last night by the London district council of the Union of Post Office Workers, I believe against the advice of the union. That decision is probably already in operation.
Even when I last raised this question with you, Mr. Speaker, on an application under Standing Order No. 9, 85 sacks of mail destined for or dispatched from Grunwick Processing Laboratories were held immobile. Since then the position has deteriorated. Now the proposal is that all movement of mail should be stopped and also—I have not included it in my notice, because I was not fully informed about it—that telephonic communication should be interrupted. In those circumstances it is clear that a question of principle of the utmost importance might emerge from this dispute not solely linked to the dispute, namely, whether

the rule of law shall prevail in this country.
I submit that this matter should have the immediate consideration of the House, because the Attorney-General, when answering a Private Notice Question recently, said that he would make inquiries about the probable reaction if he were to prosecute for breaches of the Post Office Act. We have heard nothing since and no prosecution has been launched. If it be conceded that a hostile reaction from those whom the Attorney-General sounded is enough to prevent the application of the law, important constitutional questions arise. Therefore, I submit that the Attorney-General should have the earliest opportunity of coming before the House and explaining his inaction and accounting for the manner in which he has exercised his discretion.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when the question of the Attorney-General's discretion arose in another matter he said that he was accountable for it not before the courts but before Parliament. I ask that, in accordance with his own repeated declaration, he should come before Parliament and account for the manner in which he is exercising his discretion in this important and urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and several other hon. Members gave me notice this morning that they wished to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation at Grunwick with particular reference to the decision of the London district council of the Union of Post Office Workers to ban all movement of mail to and from Gran-wick.
I indicated to the House that I have had applications from both sides of the House on this matter, and in the plural on both sides. I have realised from the beginning of this dispute that there was bound to be a time when the House should have the chance to discuss the national issues involved. Since my previous rulings on the matter there have been other developments in connection with the dispute.
I want the House to know that if I accede to this request the matters that


are sub judice will still remain sub judice in any debate that follows. Secondly, it is possible if other legal action is taken this day or tomorrow morning that it could still prevent our discussing the Post Office matter. That subject would become sub judice and would be added to the list. I remind the House further that if I agree to this request the debate will be on the Adjournment and therefore everything will be in order except those matters which are sub judice.
Bearing those considerations in mind, I believe that the time has come when I must agree to the request. I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that the motion for the Adjournment of the House now stands over until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Lipton: I wish to raise briefly a matter that relates to a question of privilege which arose from an article in today's Daily Mail which sets out the recommendations of an all-party Select Committee on the Tote and betting shops. It is reported that the findings of this Committee have been endorsed by the Cabinet and supported by senior Tory

Members, but hon. Members have not yet seen that report.
I am well aware of the ruling given in 1948 by one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, which stated that once a report has been presented to the Clerk of the House it was deemed to have been sent to the printers. Your predecessors have ruled that once a report has gone to the printers it is taken to have been laid before the House and therefore in this case a breach of privilege may be said not to exist, even though no hon. Member knows what the report contains.
Notwithstanding the time that has elapsed since the 1948 ruling, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether it is still undesirable that the report of a Select Committee should be publicised before hon. Members have had a chance of reading the report. I ask you to state that you regret very much that this has happened and that you support the view that the Select Committee's report should not have been disclosed to the Press.
The article in question today may not be a breach of privilege, but you may say, Mr. Speaker, that it calls for your displeasure. Even if today's article is not a matter of privilege, I should still like to know whether it calls for your displeasure.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman will bring the papers forward I shall give this matter the consideration that he expects me to give it. I shall give my answer tomorrow.

Copy in newspaper handed in.

MAGISTRATES (DEMOCRATIC SELECTION)

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the democratic selection of magistrates; and for connected purposes.
The Bill that I am proposing, although in a sense seeking to make only a minor constitutional amendment, is, I hope, consistent with good constitutional principles. I suggest to the House that in any part of our system of government, whether the Executive, legislature, or judiciary, we should be concerned—and all democrats should be concerned—to ensure that at least two principles are applied.
The first principle is that as far as possible the method of recruitment and selection to Parliament, the Civil Service and the judiciary should be by a system that is open and understood, so that anyone who wishes to join any of these bodies knows exactly how to do so, and anyone who wishes to propose another person for these bodies should also know how to do so. That is the principle of openness.
Secondly, everyone concerned with democracy should also be concerned that no branch of our government, either by accident or design, becomes the exclusive privilege of any one social group or class, any one economic group, or any particular section of our community. It is important that as far as possible Parliament, the Civil Service and the judiciary should be representative of the community at large.
The part of our system of government that I want to change is the magistracy, because I do not believe that it fulfils either of these two requirements. The magistracy is a very important part of our judiciary. It deals with 98 per cent. of criminal cases, and large numbers of magistrates are responsible for carrying out this work. As for openness, I do not think that anyone could seriously argue that the present system of selection of magistrates is not shrouded in secrecy.
A Central Office of Information leaflet, which is a guide to becoming a justice of the peace, enshrines this secrecy almost as a matter of principle. The leaflet states that the advisory committees that advise

the Lord Chancellor should not have their identities disclosed so that
they may be shielded from undesirable influences in performing their duties".
I should have thought that the truth was almost the reverse of this proposition. The more one shrouds the system in secrecy, the more likely it is that there will be undesirable influences. The more open the system, the more people can recognise the undesirable influences if they exist. It is desirable that the system should be more open.
On the subject of how representative magistrates are, the leaflet states that the advisory committees are told that they should take a number of factors into account in making their recommendations. The committees
must also ensure that each Bench is broadly representative of all sections of the community which it has to serve".
The committees are also told to take into account the need for a balance between men and women and also a balance between political parties.
I undertook a little research in my own constituency in Lichfield and Tamworth to see whether the bench was representative on any of these counts. Of the 29 members of the bench in Tamworth only two are weekly wage earners and the great bulk of the bench is composed of company directors, farmers, business managers and groups of that sort. In Lichfield, the other half of my constituency, three of the 45 magistrates are weekly wage earners and the rest are representative of the other groups that I have just mentioned.
I must make plain that a consideration that the advisory committee must take into account is the political structure of the bench. If one considers the political balance in Tamworth one finds that out of 29 magistrates—and one must remember that Tamworth has been consistently a Labour town and intends to remain so—just six are Labour party supporters. That is some sort of indication of the lack of balance and representation of the area. Both benches have few young people—and by young I mean people in their 30s. As for the balance between men and women, both benches, as one would expect, are overwhelmingly dominated by men. If one looks at the balance between town and country, one


finds that the small villages are most heavily represented, not the urban area of Tamworth. The village of Fisherwick, with a population of 123, has two magistrates, while the urban area of Trinity in Tamworth, which has three important settlements and a population of 10,000 to 11,000, has only three magistrates.
This imbalance goes right through the system. It may be that Lichfield and Tamworth are exceptional and that throughout the rest of the country the balance tends in the other direction, but I regret that the evidence is entirely contrary. If anything, Lichfield and Tamworth are mildly more representative than other areas. The most recent national figures, which date from 1972, showed that 84 per cent. of magistrates in England and Wales came from the Registrar-General's social groups one and two, that is, the professional and managerial classes. It is significant that that figure has hardly changed during (he last 20 years in spite of the injunctions of the COI leaflet, the words spoken by most Lord Chancellors on this subject and the feelings of most hon. Members.
The bench is not socially representative in any way at all. It is important that we should find some means of ensuring that the magistracy is what it was originally intended to be, that is, composed of people living in the community, from the widest possible range, sitting in judgment and deciding on cases within the community so that the lay view can be brought to bear.
How can one reform the system? The proposal in my Bill is that, subject to certain controls, the district councils should take over the responsibility for recommending appointments to the bench. Of course the district councils could be advised by the law officers who are employed by all district councils as chief executives or in other posts. The appointments should be made openly and there should be a vote. Everybody should

know who was recommended and why certain people were rejected.
The other part of the proposal in the Bill is an appendix to lay down the principles that should apply to the appointment of magistrates and the criteria that I have suggested for a balance on the Bench between age, sex, social background political background and geographical spread within the area.
Finally, the district council would have responsibility each year for publishing a list of its magistrates and of these various classifications to show how the bench was changing and to show whether it was becoming more or less representative over a time. That information should be available to the public. Particularly on matters of political affiliation, it is vital that such information is up to date. Hon. Members may be aware that there is a common phenomenon whereby as people grow older, as their judgment becomes blurred and their brains are not what they used to be, there is a tendency for them to move from the Labour Party to other political parties. When that happens, it is obviously something that should be recorded in the composition of the bench. A person's political affiliations of 20 years ago should not be regarded as true for all time.
I make this modest proposal to the House and I hope that it will be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr, Ivor Clemitson, Mr. Bryan Davies, Mr. Geoff Edge, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. George Rodgers and Mr. Ken Weetch.

MAGISTRATES (DEMOCRATIC SELECTION)

Mr. Bruce Grocott accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the democratic selection of magistrates; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — SOCIETY OF LITHOGRAPHIC ARTISTS, ENGRAVERS, DESIGNERS AND PROCESS WORKERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

4.47 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: I have been trying during recent months and years to lower the temperature of debates in the House on industrial relations because it is right that the House should speak as nearly with one voice as possible for parties with different views on matters of legislation in industrial relations. We are having an exploratory debate on the recruiting methods and techniques of SLADE—the Society of Lithographic Artists, Engravers, Designers and Process Workers. It is not the intention of this side to divide the House. I cannot say that we hope that the debate will be conducted in a low key because there are passionate views on the matter. However, we hope that it will be conducted in a reasonable spirit, showing that we are trying to understand the problems that have arisen and to make suggestions as to the action that should be taken.
We are drawing attention to the recruiting techniques that are being applied by SLADE in commercial art studios, photographic laboratories, advertising agencies and among individual illustrators and fashion photographers. People have been appalled by reports that they have seen on television and read in the newspapers and many hon. Members have been appalled by letters that they have received from their constituents.
Trade union officials have approached enterprises. They have been greeted with disinterest by the staff or, worse still, have not even bothered to talk to the staff. The officials have then gone to management and demanded that the workpeople should join the union. Having recruited not one member by voluntary methods, the officials have demanded not merely

recognition but an instant closed shop and have backed up their demands by indicating that work going to or coming from an enterprise may be blacked. Occasionally to show that they mean business they have blacked the work even before seeing the management.
That is not free trade unionism at work. It is against all traditions of free organisation which the Labour movement in this country has stood for in the past. It is reminiscent of the protection racket and gangsterism. Trade unionists and the public alike can hardly believe that such things can go on without the law, the Government, Parliament or the unions lifting a finger to stop it. People rightly look to us in Parliament to debate these issues and to provide a lead. That is why the Opposition have brought this matter to the attention of the House today.
Let me give some examples. Mr. Ben Massara, Managing Director of Gilchrist Studios, is quoted as saying,
At the start of 1975, SLADE tried to recruit the staff on a voluntary basis, but there was very little response. Then in May [...] hotted up. They approached us directly and left me in no doubt that if the staff weren't persuaded to join the union, it could lead to trouble. We were emphasising all the time that it was up to the individual. Then we allowed SLADE to address the staff, and the reaction was quite hostile. After the meeting the union officials said to me: 'You do something. Unless they join you'll be blacked.'.
Mr. Max Rayner, Chairman of Combined Graphic Studios, says that he had a phone call from a SLADE official
in which he told us what had happened at Gilchrist and that we were next in line. He told me we had two weeks to get organised or we would be blacked. I said it was his job not mine to recruit members and pointed out that this approach was just the same as a protection racket. He said that he didn't like to hear me put it that way but that I was right.
I also had a letter from a member of the public—I expect that many hon. Members have had such letters—who wrote that he had always been a moderate and had never before spoken out in protest on a public matter. He said,
I fully appreciate the admirable rôle unions have played in the past as I come from a working-class background and my father was an active trade unionist all his working life. But surely these two unions "—


he is referring to SLADE and the National Graphical Association—
have no place in a profession they know little about, is certainly not oppressed and need a high degree of flexibility in order to operate. What the trade unions fail to understand about advertising and commercial art is that the people who work in it are highly skilled individuals who are more than capable of selling those skills at a fair price. For unions to try, and impose restrictions and structures of skill and pay would only be detrimental to the very high standard of skill that exists at the present time.
He went on:
Yet if I were not to join either SLADE or NGA I would no longer be able to continue in my profession. I must also force union membership on the people I employ, stop subcontracting work to non-union freelance artists with whom I have worked for years, some of whom have been self-employed all their working lives.
We are concerned not with the merits or otherwise of unionising advertising agencies, studios and related activities.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I am a member of NGA. The right hon. Gentleman has read a serious letter, but does he intend to indicate whether he has made any inquiries about its authenticity?

Mr. Prior: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is an absolutely authentic letter. I know the firm involved and the source from which the letter came. This is the first time that this man has written to me, and it is an authentic source. I have received a number of letters in which people have asked me not to disclose their names. Although the big advertising agencies may not mind their names being disclosed, it seems that individuals do not want their names used. I can vouch for the authenticity of this letter and I hope that the House will accept that.
Employers argue, with wide support from their staffs, that it would be inappropriate to bring unions into a business that demands entrepreneurial flair, where the atmosphere is one of individual rather than collective bargaining and where they cannot afford to "carry" those who do not meet the high standards of talent and flexibility that are demanded. I understand that the unions fear that more help is needed for those who fall by the wayside in this competitive busi-

ness, that common standards should be set and that work once done by their members may be handled elsewhere. I am trying to understand both points of view.
We are talking not about whether SLADE has a right to recruit or to seek recognition. What has deeply disturbed people inside and outside the business and trade unions is the way in which SLADE has gone about it.
Consider the position of an individual employee in an advertising agency. He may have worked in a job for many years and never even seen a trade union official. Suddenly he is called to a meeting by his employer who explains that he must join a union or the work that they do may be stopped by unionised workers elsewhere. Perhaps a union official is dispatched to explain the position. Two things impress themselves on the employee very quickly. First, the union knows next to nothing about his business. Secondly, unless he joins and persuades a sufficient number of his colleagues to do the same, he runs the risk of seeing his firm shut, himself out of a job and unable to find similar work elsewhere.
And what happens if he does join? For a start, this is not a sweatshop business. In most cases he is unlikely to find himself any better off. The union pay agreement is below normal rates. In return for this he will find himself the member of something called the SLADE Art Union. As the union has had such a very large if unrequested impact on his affairs, he might reasonably wonder what chance he has of influencing it. The answer will be "precious little". The relationship of the recently invented Art Union to the main union is highly unclear, and the main union itself only has constitutional provision for a meeting of branch delegates once every three years. Ernest Bevin once said:
Let us be quite frank with one another… Trade union ballots do not reach the standard of parliamentary election".
What would he have made of SLADE procedures?
And at the end of all this, is the individual employee free to work in peace? There is no such guarantee. For SLADE is not the only union recruiting in this


area, or in this manner. For example, we have NATSOPA, too, setting up a National Association of Advertising Representatives with the ultimate aim of achieving a closed shop in advertising. Once a worker has joined SLADE, what guarantee has he that his work will not then be blacked by another print union?
And what about the position of the employer? He finds himself being faced with the prospect of blacking unless he tells his work force to join up. Nor does it end there. Now we have the "fair list" produced jointly by SLADE and the NGA. It covers advertising agencies, studios, laboratories, typesetters and illustrators.
This is not fair and open recruitment. It is disgraceful. It should be, and I believe is, an embarrassment to the whole trade union movement and the Labour Party.

Mr. Moonman: Rubbish!

Mr. Prior: People understandably ask, how can it happen? The answer is that they could not have done it or anything like it had the Government accepted the reasonable amendments in the original Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. For SLADE members would not have had the immunity against breach of commercial contract that gives the blacking threat its sinister menace. And, of course, it would not have been possible under the Industrial Relations Act.
It is possible now for two reasons. First, because the Trade Union and Labour Relations Amendment Act gives individuals that immunity they previously lacked; Secondly, because when a trade union comes to an employer demanding recognition, he has no right to refer that claim to an independent body—only the union can do that.
During the passage of the 1974 Act, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who was Secretary of State for Employment, spoke about the controversial immunity provisions relating to a commercial contract and said:
In restoring the rights we are not making a threat to the community; we are, indeed, enlarging the freedom of the individual".—[Official Report, 11th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1588.]
What a travesty of the facts as seen against the operations of SLADE in the past three years! I do not believe that it

was ever intended that the 1974 Act or the Employment Protection Act should work in this way. Procedures under the Employment Protection Act are being blatantly ignored while machinery for recognition and powers granted for other purposes under the 1974 Act are being abused in an intolerable manner.
We know why the Secretary of State cannot be here. We warned him that it was not enough to give only the unions access to the recognition procedures under the Employment Protection Act. We raised the problem in Committee when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) asked the Secretary of State:
What about a dispute between two unions on a recognition issue? Neither union, because it supposes that the case may not be resolved in its favour, may be prepared to refer the dispute to ACAS. But in the meantime they make life hell for the employer in pursuit of their own internecine differences".
The Secretary of State replied:
How? The hon. and learned Gentleman must explain that".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 12th June 1975; c. 390-1.]
The Secretary of State asked "How?". Now he knows how, as a result of what has happened in recent months.
On Report the Secretary of State indicated that he saw the difficulty. He said
If, as a result of such consultations, a way can be found to accommodate satisfactorily both the voluntary TUC procedures and any new statutory procedures, the Government will consider bringing forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage of the proceedings of the Bill".—[Official Report, 30th July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 1968.]
We have not had that. These procedures have not been adequate. They have totally failed to deal with the situation.
What needs to be done? First we need recognition by the Government that the present position is intolerable. We expect to get that from the Government and from Parliament in today's debate. I do not believe that any hon. Member could say that the present position is anything other than intolerable.
Secondly, we know that there are voices in Congress House that express the same view. We expect that their views will be strengthened by what Parliament says today. The TUC, through its Printing Industries Committee, must now get to work. We know that it is to


meet the IPA on 19th July. I suggest that its first action should be to ensure that all blacking is called off immediately. It must also ensure that the fair list drawn up by SLADE and the NGA is withdrawn. This is most important and the House sould support this suggestion. I certainly hope that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) will. Although he is a member of the NGA, he must recognise that what is going on is intolerable.
Thirdly, in due course the House will want to look at the law relating to recognition. Of course there are difficulties about persuading people to use the ACAS procedure, as the Secretary of State recognised during the Committee on the Employment Protection Act. What is to be done if a union refuses to use the recognition procedure that is laid down, or if an employer refuses to accept the recommendation? A sanction was devised to apply to the employer. The union can go to the Central Arbitration Committee to determine pay. Yet there is no sanction if the union refuses to use the procedure because it thinks that it can do better by ignoring it and that it can get away with it. To hon. Members on this side of the House and to the country this is an intolerable situation.
Will the Government now indicate that employers should be allowed to refer recognition disputes under Section 11, or some other section, of the Employment Protection Act? Will they also look at sanctions applying to unions who dodge the procedure? Surely no one would suggest that unions who fail to use the appropriate methods should be entitled to the legal immunities for inducing breach of contract that make the threat of blacking so menacing and so effective. That goes to the nub of the problem.
There is no case for having the procedures under Section 11 of the Act, which allow a union to take a case for recognition to ACAS, and yet, at the same time, allow a union to black and to bring about a breach of contract while retaining the immunities under Sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. The Government and the House must consider these problems. We must consider the general problems of persuading the TUC and its Printing Industries Committee to take the action

that we have suggested. We must draw attention to the practices of SLADE, which are deeply resented and detested by people outside the House as well as by hon. Members.
Let the Government answer. Did they intend that the Employment Protection Act and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act should work in this way? I cannot believe for one moment that they did. In which case, is it not time that they gave firm indications of what they intend to do and whether they will hold a review that will lead to the necessary changes. The House has a right to expect answers from the Government on these difficult problems. We do not expect them to be positive today about changes in legislation, but we expect them to recognise that there is a genuine problem that must be dealt with if justice is to be seen to be done.

5.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I appreciate the restrained approach taken by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).
The House will recognise that we are discussing only one aspect of the complex web of industrial relations problems that have emerged in recent years in the printing and allied industries. Of course, this aspect is an important one. Saying that it is only part of a wider scene is in no way intended to minimise that fact.
Perhaps, in order to understand the issues and problems more clearly, I should say something, albeit briefly, about the background and history of the matters before us. SLADE—the Society of Lithographic Artists, Engravers, Designers and Process Workers—is a relatively small union. It is about 20,000 strong, or perhaps a little less. It is an old-established union, and its members are concentrated in the printing industry. They deal primarily with the preparation and printing of pictures in all their forms, as distinct from the reproduction of words.
In recent years new techniques and new technologies have tended to transform the printing industry. Old skills are becoming redundant, new equipment is replacing men and new methods are slashing the need for labour. Nowhere have these factors hit harder up till now


than the sector of the printing industry in which SLADE's members have been traditionally employed.
I shall not weary the House with a description of these new techniques and changes. It is sufficient that we are aware of them and of their impact if we are to recognise and respond correctly to the problems described by the right hon. Gentleman. We have to recognise that for SLADE—and indeed for other printing unions—the jobs and the livelihoods of their members and their families are at issue.
In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the union should react by trying to extend its sphere of influence. Two years ago the union embarked upon a new and vigorous campaign to set up the SLADE Art Union, as a distinct, yet constituent, part of its organisation, to represent those employed in the advertising and related industries. The union has consistently sought to recruit and retain members in such sectors outside the mainstream of the printing industry. But until recently it has done so without a great deal of success.
Of course, efforts by trade unions to recruit new members or to move into new sectors of employment are commonplace. It is a normal form of trade union activity to which only those opposed in principle to trade unions would object. In the circumstances of the industrial changes that I have mentioned, such an effort on the part of SLADE to diversify was understandable. What was unusual in this instance was that soon after the campaign started, in addition to the usual trade union methods of persuasion and proselytising, SLADE used the threat of blacking non-SLADE work by SLADE members in printing establishments to persuade people to join the union. This was a potent weapon, since individuals and companies in areas such as advertising and publishing depend, often to a large extent, on having the material that they produce processed in printing establishments.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman, with his wealth of experience, gets on to the blacking issue, would be say whether he has ever heard of any other union which has two types of member—one with full

rights to pension funds and strike funds and the other, some of whom have now been recruited, with absolutely no such rights, paying a lower subscription of only 20p a week and having no access to pension funds or strike funds? There are two discriminatory types within the one union. Is there a precedent for that?

Mr. Walker: I do not know what distinctions are laid down in the union's rule book—I have a copy with me—between the different classes of membership, but it is a fairly common characteristic of unions. Indeed, my own union, the AUEW, Engineering Section, has its craft section, its women's section, its guilds section and its young people's section. This is usual in the trade union world.
Over the last few years, the SLADE campaign, or the publicity given to it, has fluctuated. In the advertising industry, the particular target of SLADE, individuals and companies, both large and small, have been approached and, according to Press reports, have been threatened that the work will be blacked unless they or their employees join the union. Incidents which have attracted particular publicity have been the union's unsuccessful attempt to impose union membership on employees of one of the largest advertising agencies, Collett, Dickenson and Pearce, last autumn and the successful attempt earlier this year to do the same to Tattersalls, a smaller Yorkshire-based agency.
However, as is so often the case, the issues have generated more heat than light. There have been allegations, on the one hand, that SLADE was trying to force union membership down the throats of workpeople who did not wish to join and on the other that employers were in some cases taking up an intransigent, anti-union stance, preventing the trade union from attempting to organise, threatening individuals who joined with victimisation and keeping down wages as a consequence. The exact truth is often difficult to discover.
One must readily accept that SLADE's action has provoked dispute and controversy, not only within the advertising industry but, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, also within the trade union movement. The blacking action


has on occasion affected the work produced by members of other unions. It is true that a number of these other unions are not prepared to concede that SLADE should have exclusive recruitment rights in the advertising and related industries.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Is the Minister aware that there is a small firm in my constituency, in a country village, employing only three people, which has been blacked unless those three agree to join SLADE, that none of them wants to and that all have refused to do so? Can he advise me what I should say to the owner of the firm, the employer, about what he should do? His business is likely to be ruined. These three people have rights not to belong to the trade union if they do not want to do so. How may those rights be exercised?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman were patient, he might find some of the advice he seeks in the later part of my speech. I have read the article that he wrote for the Daily Telegraph, published today. I wish that it had been as informative as it was interesting. In that article, he puts forward the idea, which was embodied in the Industrial Relations Act, that workers should have a statutory right not to join a trade union. The whole House will recall the disastrous consequences of providing for that in the Industrial Relations Act.
Also in that article, the hon. Gentleman assumes that many people will leave the trade union movement once they have a statutory right to do so. When that statutory right was accorded between 1971 and 1974, trade union membership, instead of falling as proponents of this idea suggest, actually grew. Few, if any, people left the movement when they had a statutory right to do so.
To turn back to the main stream of my speech, I would remind the House that last year, in particular, the dispute on the issue which I had been describing flared up between SLADE and the National Graphical Association, which also has members in the printing and newspaper industries. Talks were arranged under the auspices of the TUC's Printing Industries Committee, which has been active in recent months in trying to encourage the satisfactory solution of the various problems which have arisen from

SLADE's action, and a temporary solution was arrived at towards the end of last year.
However, I understand that SLADE, together with the NGA, has now initiated a new joint campaign which involves the dispatch of a so-called "fair list" of approved firms which employ SLADE or NGA labour to members of these unions together with labels which are to be used to chart the progress of printing work. The object of this exercise is apparently to make sure that printing work does not come into contact with non-union labour at any stage and to enable anything that has been handled by non-union labour to be identified and blacked so that it will not be reproduced or printed.
It might be useful to look briefly at the elements of the SLADE action in the light of the traditions of industrial relations practice in this country and the changing pattern of law over the last few years, before considering them as a whole.
First, let us consider SLADE's objectives. Its principal objective is clearly to increase its membership and to expand into hitherto non-unionised areas. The right hon. Gentleman fairly recognised that that is a legitimate activity of a trade union and that none of us should seek to deny SLADE the right to recruit new members. Indeed, our legislation now contains safeguards for the individual against dismissal or other forms of discrimination by his employer for trade union membership or for taking part in trade union activities, as well as the procedures, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, by means of which unions can seek recognition. The right hon. Gentleman make it plain that what he objects to is not that legitimate objective but the tactics adopted by the union in trying to achieve it.
Although there are now new safeguards and procedures in this area, tolerance and reasonable behaviour by both sides of industry—unions and employers—are required if industrial relations are to be developed amicably and disputes are to be diminished and avoided. I hope that the House will agree that it is unreasonable for an employer to refuse to allow a trade union to attempt to organise his employees, as has been alleged in a number of instances recently.
On the other hand, where there is a dispute about recognition, I would expect any union, including SLADE, to pursue the matter as far as possible through ACAS and through the statutory procedures laid down by Parliament, rather than by taking direct action. I am encouraged by the fact that so many unions have chosen to pursue recognition issues in what is now the statutory way, and that, up to the end of last May, 198 references to ACAS had been withdrawn by voluntary settlement.
The right hon. Gentleman pressed me on his suggestion, which, as he said, the Opposition made in Committee on the Employment Protection Bill, that employers should have access to the recognition procedures and should be able to trigger off those recognition procedures. However, in addition to the arguments which we adduced at that time—strong arguments, I thought—we should still be left at the end of the day, even if this suggestion were adopted, with a problem. It would be interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman's view on how enforcement could be imposed on behalf of the employer at the end of the procedure.
The right hon. Gentleman fairly drew attention to the difficulties which face unions in securing compliance with a recommendation of ACAS and the protracted nature of that procedure.

Mr. Prior: I can give the Minister one view straight away. That is that, if a union does not use the recognition procedures laid down by ACAS, it should not have the immunity which is granted to it under Sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. It is intolerable that no sanctions may be applied to a union which does not abide by the procedures laid down by the Employment Protection Act, with which the employer is forced to comply.

Mr. Walker: I understand that, but I was dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's separate point about giving the employer the right to trigger off the procedure under Section 11 and subsequent sections of the Employment Protection Act. In the event of the employer being in a position to activate the trigger mechanism at the end of the road, how would the employer secure implementation in the event of securing a favourable

recommendation from ACAS? Among the other problems that we discussed in Committee, it is that particular problem to which the right hon. Gentleman must address himself.
I turn to the second part of SLADE's action—the closed shop. It has already been pointed out that in many instances it appears that SLADE and the National Graphical Association are seeking to secure closed shop agreements. This is a matter that the House has debated on many occasions during the past three years. I stress again, as I have done on many occasions, that our policy is one of neutrality towards the closed shop. Current legislation reflects that neutrality and restores the legal position basically to what it was before the Industrial Relations Act made it such a hot issue.
Closed shop agreements are lawful now as they were for so many years before 1971. It is now generally recognised that the attempts made in the Industrial Relations Act to outlaw the closed shop were misconceived and impracticable. I should be surprised if Opposition Members would be prepared to turn the clock back to that grim period.
Notwithstanding the fact that many unions are now seeking to take advantage of the restored opportunity to enter into closed shop agreements, I hope that they will seek to return to the traditional tolerance and flexibility that in general characterised closed shop situations and the pursuance of the closed shop before 1971.
I turn to the other aspects of SLADE's tactics and its objective of increased membership.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The right hon. Gentleman did not differentiate in his statement about closed shops—I waited until he finished before intervening—between post-entry and pre-entry. It would be interesting for the House to hear his views and the Government's views on SLADE's attitude to post-entry and pre-entry closed shops.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is luring me down a road that would take up a disproportionate amount of the time of the House. It is a subject that we have debated on a number of occasions in the House. It is no part of my responsibility to seek to defend SLADE's actions, or


even to explain the details. It is not for me to explain why it has adopted a particular position. I understand that SLADE is quite clear that it is seeking to establish post-entry closed shops.
Complaints have concentrated on sympathetic action, or the threat of such action, by SLADE members in other establishments to reinforce the claims put by SLADE to particular employers and individuals. As the House will be aware, blacking and similar secondary industrial action of that sort has for many years been a traditional weapon of trade unions in their struggle for industrial objectives. I think I am entitled to remind the House that the Donovan Commission firmly rejected any new legal controls on secondary action. It recommended certain changes in the law to clarify what was a rather confused legal position built up on case law and to reduce the intrusion of the law into this area.
The Industrial Relations Act attempted to restrict the freedom of workers and their unions to take sympathetic action in support of a dispute, but it proved wholly unworkable. I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of his party, seriously suggest that the Conservative Party might consider attempting to introduce a similar provision in future. The 1974 and 1976 Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts broadly restored the position to what it was before 1971, with the addition of the amendments to which I have referred that followed upon the Donovan Commission's recommendations.
If, in general, not only attempts by trade unions to increase membership or secure closed shop agreements are lawful and legitimate but so is sympathetic action in support of those and other industrial objectives, one might be tempted to ask why there has been so much concern about the current activities of SLADE.
The advertising industry, by its very nature, is more capable of publicising matters of concern to it than most other industries. In some quarters, of course, every opportunity is taken to attack trade unions in general, and attempts by trade unions to introduce closed shops in particular. However, I accept that there are significant differences between this and most of the other closed shop issues that

have emerged in the past few years. I am bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman that they have caused me some concern, as they have to friends of the trade union movement.
When a union seeks to obtain a closed shop agreement with a particular employer, in normal circumstances it is starting from a basis of substantial membership amongst the employer's work force. It is interesting to refer to the comments of Clive Jenkins, the General Secretary of ASTMS, whose union has had a good deal of success in recent years in recruiting new members. Clive Jenkins is reported as saying a month or two ago that as a general rule of thumb he would ask for collective bargaining rights when his membership in the organisation or company had reached about a third, and that he would be prepared to negotiate for a union membership agreement when the membership had reached 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. He said that he thought that was the normal trade union approach. That is broadly true. Where a closed shop is being sought, it is almost invariably the case that the union already represents a substantial number, and usually a significant majority, of those in the plant or the grade of worker concerned.
In the context of the closed shop we have consistently maintained that we doubt whether it would be right to attempt to grant individuals a legal right not to belong to a trade union, especially where the majority of their fellow workers want a closed shop.
We must have regard the views of the majority as well as those of the minority. If the majority in an establishment wants to work in a 100 per cent. closed shop, that must be weighed against the views of dissenting individuals. However, to attempt through external pressure to impose closed shop agreements on establishments in which the great bulk of the work force does not wish to join the union in question, and still less to be subject to a closed shop agreement, is a different matter.
Throughout all my years in the trade union movement, many of them served as a shop steward, I have always believed that for the overwhelming majority of workers the case for trade union membership was so compelling as to need no coercion. Persuasion and explanation of


the benefits and obligations of membership are much more likely to bring the laggards into effective and positive participation in a union than any amount of stick. However, that implies the opportunity to persuade, and access, which is recognised in SLADE's Executive Committee declaration.
On the same point, i note that the distinguished Industrial Editor of the Daily Mirror, Geoffrey Goodman, writes today:
The union case should always stand on its own feet. It should be achieved by persuasion. Though that persuasion has to be based on an equal right and power to be able to persuade".
I share that view. In the circumstances, I hope that SLADE will be prepared to consider a more tolerant and patient approach to the recruitment of new members in the advertising and publishing industries. In saying that, I am sure that I reflect the view of the TUC.

Mr. Peter Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows from the correspondence that I have had with him, exactly the same principle applies in the Midlands where the Transport and General Workers' Union seeks to impose a closed shop at two firms where it has only 20 per cent. union membership. Sanctions are being applied and petrol is not being delivered. Bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's plea for a change of attitude, does he agree that it applies just as strongly to these activities in the Midlands?

Mr. Walker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the statement that I have made on principle without wanting to lure me into its application in particular cases. It is clear that there are a number of cases that I could take up, but to do so would be to take a disproportionate amount of the limited time that is available. I am sure that the House will wish me to seek to come to a conclusion.
As I was saying, I am sure that my view reflects the view of the TUC. I believe that its good offices probably provide the best hope of securing a satisfactory outcome.
The TUC's Printing Industries Committee, chaired by Mr. Bill Keys, has been active in attempting to conciliate in these problems. Apart from seeking to mediate in the disputes between affiliated unions

that have broken out as a result of SLADE's actions, it will shortly—I understand on 19th July—be meeting the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising to discuss the situation with the aim of promoting jointly agreed procedures under which the unions concerned will have proper opportunities to seek to organise employees in the advertising agencies and art studios. I also understand that discussions of a similar nature are taking place with the trade associations which represent photographers and illustrators. I am convinced that these talks offer the best way forward.
But the situation is delicate and, in view of the imminence of the discussions, and my anxiety, which I am sure is shared by the whole House, that the outcome should be constructive and beneficial, I hope that we shall avoid saying things that might prejudice progress.
In conclusion, I should like to make three points. First, although I have myself expressed disquiet at SLADE's tactics, I firmly reject any suggestions that this affair could be more satisfactorily resolved through the intervention of the law, or that some sort of new statutory prohibition should be imposed to make tactics such as those employed by SLADE illegal. As we all know only too well, such statutory prohibitions have only recently been tried and found wanting. A reversion to industrial relations law of this kind would be a retrograde step.
Secondly, although I cannot say that I am altogether confident of a satisfactory outcome to this affair, I very much hope that good sense will prevail. I am reassured that the TUC has this objective very much in mind and is working actively to that end.
Finally, I think it right to remind the House, and the parties to this and other disputes, that industrial relations problems cannot be solved without some give and take on each side. We have established procedures to encourage the peaceful settlement of disputes and the strengthening of collective bargaining arrangements, but without this give and take and a willingness to accept the spirit underlying current legislation, as well as the letter, we shall not make the progress that is needed.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley: I am glad that we initiated this debate, because there is a fundamental issue here. It is not, at root, a question of bargaining rights or whether people should be able to join a trade union of their own volition. It is at root a question whether it is right for a trade union to initiate industrial action against firms when those firms have no members of that union and against firms where there is no industrial dispute.
In my judgment, from the evidence given to me by firms in my constituency, it seems that SLADE is significantly widening the frontiers of industrial action and is claiming the right to take action against firms simply because they have employees who do not belong to SLADE but whom SLADE wishes to recruit. There is no doubt in my mind that a significant measure of coercion is taking place and has taken place over many months. I am sorry that the Minister of State did not seem prepared to acknowledge that the allegations of coercion that have appeared in the Press have substance in fact. As he is unwilling to recognise that fact, perhaps I can give him one or two illustrations from firms in my constituency.
The first is from a member of SLADE itself. He is a constituent of mine. He is profoundly disgusted by the actions of the union. He feels that it would not be right, or, indeed, fair to him, for me to reveal his name, because he has not sufficient confidence in his union to believe that it would not take action against him personally if his name was revealed. But I have his letter here, and he has also provided me with a copy of a letter from SLADE circulated to fathers of chapels throughout the South-East by the secretary of the South-Eastern branch. That letter from SLADE says:
Dear colleague,
Work from unrecognised sources. Please note that following unsuccessful attempts to organise the undermentioned company any artwork produced by this firm is 'black' and should therefore not be handled.
The company thus blacked was Oxford Illustrators Ltd. The letter is a union document and seems clear evidence of the sort of coercion taking place.
I have a letter from another constituent who also feels that such is the pressure on small printing and art work businesses that he, too, must remain anonymous. It is a sad state of affairs that when constituents write to their Members of Parliament their fear of intimidation and of pressure on their own firms is such that they feel that they cannot let their names be revealed. This gentleman writes:
For 30 years I have run a successful small design, artwork and photographic studio in the centre of London. Now the business is threatened by union activity. We have not been approached in any way directly by union officials and none of our staff has expressed any wish to join, in fact, quite the contrary. But three of our client firms have now told us that they will reluctantly be forced to use us no more unless we employ union labour. It seems that the union which represents processing engravers and printers have instructed their members to refuse to process work other than from studios employing union members. This is, to my mind, no more than a protection racket.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The point is, surely, that the intent is that they should trade only with those on the list of the new booklet which has been compiled by this union in conjunction with another union.

Mr. Stanley: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is correct. Indeed, I have also received from another constituent the detailed instructions which SLADE has been circulating to all its branches explaining exactly how the so-called "fair"—a total misuse of the word—list should operate.
I gave a third and final example, but this time it concerns someone belonging to the related National Graphical Association, or rather who is under pressure to do so. This gentleman is willing for his name to be made public. He is Mr. Arthur Auger and he writes:
I am a self-employed Commercial Artist, and have been so for 27 years. After all this time I have been 'blacked' by the NGA—so now the artwork I produce cannot be printed by a union firm and one of the people I have been associated with for 25 years cannot now print my work.
I hope that these illustrations make clear the extent of the industrial pressure, indeed, blackmail, being applied, particularly to the smaller businesses in this work.
A fundamental principle is at stake. The principle of what is called secondary action is capable of limitless extension if


it is conceded that action can be taken against a firm, where there is no dispute, simply on the ground the the union would like to see that firm's employees become members of the union.
Now we have a situation in which it is suppliers who are being blacked. Later, we could move to a situation in which the suppliers to the suppliers might be blacked, and then, at the other end, purchasers might be blacked. If that principle is extended, we are effectively conceding a right to union activists to engage in the blacking of any firm anywhere if they so choose. That would be contrary to the spirit of the way in which trade unionism for the most part, as the Minister rightly said, has been conducted up to the present.
SLADE is telling non-union employees that they must either become members of the union or see commercial pressure applied to their firms, so that those firms become bankrupt. That is unacceptable and intolerable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said, and I hope that, as well as being firmly condemned on this side of the House, it will be condemned by the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, in rather more than the lukewarm terms employed by the Minister of State.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I am a Member of the National Graphical Association, and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that in the area of justice and the individual's freedom and rights, I would not hesitate to be critical of any organisation with which I was associated if I felt that criticism was justified. But after listening to several of the speeches and to the correspondence which has been read, and the manner in which it has been read, it would seem that when the House of Commons gets it wrong it does so in a big way.
This is a tough industry. I have been involved in it in one way or another for about 30 years. It is also an industry where the greatest concern, as expressed either in the small jobbing shop in the sort of area to which we have had references, or even in Fleet Street, is not with the sort of problem which has merited blacking, and the conflict between management and trade unions is not the issue which is in the mouths and minds of

people. They are concerned with the erosion of a craft. This is what worries most people in the industry.
If this is a different angle from that expressed so far in the debate, maybe this is because many hon. Members do not understand the industry and are acting on the basis of correspondence—which they are entitled to do—or have a total ignorance of the worries and anxieties of the industry. Unless it is understood that there is another focus to the problem, namely, the anxieties of craftsmen and the decline of a craft, we shall make no headway in understanding it.
I think it is a good thing for the Opposition to give part of their Supply Days to this issue, because it gives some of us a chance to look not only at the nature of the industry but also at some of the wider implications of industrial relations.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was right to say that, whatever the solutions which may be found on this issue, no legislation by any Government will solve this problem, because we are dealing with human situations and with the anxieties of people. If they get it wrong, we shall not solve it by legislating against what they see as their interests. They have to be educated and informed, perhaps, but they have also to be encouraged if we want them to adopt more progressive practices.
I turn now to the relationship between the NGA and SLADE in the area of the labels. What has happened, very simply, is that there has been an anxiety about the way in which work has been done by people who have no association with the industry and no interest in it at all. This is what it is all about. It is not as if we were condemning a group of fine craftsmen who are no longer able to work as they have in the past. What bugs the people in the industry is that it is so easy for the freewheeler and the person with no association or craft status whatsoever to move into the industry and out again.
The statement by the NGA and SLADE concerning the label said:
The Joint SLADE/NGA labels
—the label which is attached to the work as it moves from sector to sector—
have been designed to accommodate work being completed in stages by a number of firms. For instance, work which may originate


first within a Studio, then go on for reproduction into a SLADE house, finishing up within a printing establishment. At each stage, chapels will check by means of the T.U. label where the work has come from, and they will add their certification when the job is passed on to the next stage. The aim of the exercise is to ensure that there is a full control against non-union work slipping through the net and being reproduced or printed".
This is the anxiety of the members, and I approve of any system which attempts to assist in finding out where the work has been done in part. Because of the scale of modern technology in procedure, it is possible for these things to be done in different parts. Some firms cannot adequately cope with the total operation. It is perfectly fair, surely, for a trade union to try to assess whether part of a job has been done by a group of people with no association with the industry and no skill, and who are simply after the high rates of pay which are endemic—

Mr. David Madel: Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South) rose—

Mr. Moonman: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. We have already been warned about the shortage of time.
One evening newspaper has indicated the enormous amount of work being done by young boys and girls who have come straight from school and are engaged without completing any apprenticeship at all. What hon. Members should ask themselves here, rather than sounding off with words such as "blacking", which may be good emotional stuff in the preparation of an election address—[Interruption.] There are better uses for Supply Days, but what hon. Members should be concerned with here is work that has been done by people who have no knowledge of the industry and no association with it. That is a very serious condemnation—

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Moonman: I shall not give way. It was implied in the speech with which the debate began that there was something secretive or devious about this procedure adopted by SLADE and the NGA. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the public reports of the NGA and in the magazine Print there has been constant reference to this procedure. I have before me the latest

edition of Print, which I hope hon. Members will read. It is available from Bedford. The lead story is that
Five million of the joint NGA and SLADE identity labels have been printed, and 4½ million of these have now been issued to Association and SLADE branches. The new NGA/SLADE Recognised List of Offices was also issued last month.
The report further states:
These two new joint ventures will—in the words of Tony Dubbins, Assistant General Secretary—' greatly assist in the campaign against work from unrecognised sources'.
We can play with images—I hope that I am reasonably fair-minded—but the "unrecognised sources" are people who have no association with the industry, have not served an apprenticeship, and have no real feeling for the industry.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Moonman: What hon. Members must recognise—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman ought to be fair.

Mr. Moonman: I shall give way shortly. It was suggested that this was a new issue. I have before me a report of a delegate meeting of the National Graphical Association of June 1974. I could quote from the reports of meetings of two or three years before that. They all make one particular reference of which I think the House ought to take account. This is what was said by one of the members of the NGA who was worried about the state of the craft:
When we look at the fundamental problem we see before us today that the problem is the ease with which so much of our work can now be undertaken. With the advent of cold type composition and the new techniques that are being introduced into our industry day by day, we are finding more and more on the composing side that much of our work that previously was undertaken in the comp room is now bypassing it and coming up from unrecognised sources.
This is a confirmation of the underlying feeling of anxiety in the industry that the traditional methods of the industry, as used in the composing room, have almost become redundant because of the new processes and new technology.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is not correct to say that the union is dealing only with people who are unskilled. It is preventing people from carrying out their work


and threatening to put firms out of business which have had fully skilled people working with them for many years. Does the hon. Gentleman realise, and do his own union and SLADE realise, that while we accept that they can recruit members, if they wish, by normal means, if they try to do it by blackmail all that will happen is that work will go overseas? Work is going overseas, and the very people the hon. Gentleman is trying to help will have fewer jobs available to them.

Mr. Moonman: I cannot speak for SLADE on this, but the cases which have been brought to the attention of the NGA have shown that the people concerned have had very little association with the industry and have not had the skill that is required in the industry. On the second point, if there are examples where blackmail is being used, the Minister has condemned them and I would do so, too. This is a danger, and it would be wrong in any society and in any type of work. But we are talking today about something that goes beyond that.
I turn to the question of the "fair list". Whether we like it or not, the list is used in the printing industry. In the North of England a document that has been produced indicates those printing shops that accept the list as good and as part of trade union structure. There is nothing strange or vicious about the list. The new list which has just been brought up to date contains, among the opening remarks of the General Secretary, the words:
This booklet supersedes the one published in July 1975.
Many managers find it helpful and do not think of it as a vicious trade union document. It indicates the firms throughout the country where work can be transferred from one to another.
Who is opposed to this attempt by the NGA and SLADE to organise the "fair list" and label system? There are many people who are called "freelancers"—the "rent-a-desk" types who are prepared to move around the industry and to get the greatest possible benefit. Managements are not so anxious about the situation, as is evidenced by the fact that 700 to 800 agencies and studios have accepted the NGA agreement alone. If there were the sort of irritation that has been sug-

gested by the Opposition, we would not have such a large number signing.
It is a matter of concern in many parts of the country that the number of compositors has fallen. Between 1969 and 1971 there was a drop of 50 in Birmingham alone, and the number has declined by another 100 during the past three or four years.
I believe that the trade union movement and the committee set up through the TUC by the individual general secretaries are anxious to make sure that the movement's image is not tarnished by any one group or any one official. We shall not help the trade union movement if the case is made out—and I do not believe it has been made out by the Opposition today—in such a way that the complaints are excessive and over-stated.
At the bottom of the issue is the fear which men have when they see their craft being eroded and work that has been done over a period being transformed into new technologies. Also, some managers do not even allow men to become members of a trade union.
Much of this debate has been about how officials of SLADE intimidated people to join the union. I could give good examples, if time permitted, of cases where managers have prevented people in the industry from joining a trade union. There are two sides to all these issues. The case made out by the Opposition is biased and it does not help the industry or industrial relations in this country.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Although the House will welcome the disavowal of the Minister of some of the most disagreeable practices of SLADE, I do not think that this is good enough. The appalling recital of acts of ruthless bullying presented to the House today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) shows that the anxieties that have been expressed about the Government's industrial relations legislation have been abundantly justified.
The SLADE action relates to a number of issues but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, recognition is one of the most important. One notes with interest that the Minister and other hon. Members have tried to suggest that, whatever else


must be done, the law must be kept out of this matter and it must be solved in some other way. Unfortunately, that is not the policy that the Government have adopted in their legislation.
If the Government had said that the law and legal procedures had no place in recognition problems that would have been a logical and understandable position, even though one might disagree with it. But the Government have not adopted that view. They have come to the conclusion—rightly in my view—that, although there are some areas of industrial relations where conflicts and disputes, such as disputes over wages, can be resolved only by negotiation, or, in the last analysis, by strike action, there are other sorts of disputes which should be settled within an orderly legal framework.
The Government were right to come to the conclusion that among the forms of dispute which should be settled within an orderly framework recognition was paramount. In coming to that conclusion they were not differing from the philosophy of the Industrial Relations Act. They were altering the labels and changing the procedures, but essentially they were following the same task of providing an orderly and legal mechanism for resolving an in-tractable problem.
The Employment Protection Act provided a procedure and alternative machinery. I was glad to hear the Minister say that this should be followed properly. But in the area of recognition disputes the procedure provided by the Government should be followed always, because it should be possible to devise a machinery that will work. If there are defects in the present arrangements, those defects should and could be improved. There are problems about the procedure operating under the Employment Protection Act, but the answer is not to dismantle that procedure but to concentrate on improving it. The difficulties apply on both sides of the coin.
I come to references to ACAS. At present a trade union can refer a recognition dispute to ACAS. I accept that there is much to be said for the view that ACAS does not have adequate powers to exercise its responsibilities in relation to recognition disputes. If ACAS is not

able under the present arrangements effectively to carry out a ballot in the work place where recognition is at issue, changes should be made in the law to give ACAS the requisite powers to carry out its duties. That is not removing the law: it is improving it.
In this case it would assist the union if we had a machinery working properly. We must make changes on both sides of the coin. I would not be opposed to ACAS having greater powers to carry out ballots and to operate in that way.
Criticisms are made of the curious nature of the Central Arbitration Committee procedure. If an ACAS recommendation is not accepted, what is the sanction? We had a number of lengthy debates on the Committee stage of the Employment Protection Bill. It seems a curious sanction that if one does not recognise a union in respect of which recognition has been recommended, the union can take one to a separate body, which can impose unilateral compulsory arbitration. That still does not compel one to recognise the union. It enables a particular wage claim to be considered on a particular basis, and the sanction is unrelated to the recognition issue and therefore will not necessarily solve that problem.
Furthermore, there are other defects in the present arrangements. There is a two-month wait before the recommendations in the Central Arbitration Committee procedure can be set in motion. There is a specific statutory obligation for conciliation to be considered, and then there is the award—and possibly still no recognition. Here, again, there is a defect. If the failure of tardy procedures, ACAS and the Central Arbitration Committee has led to any distress on the union side and a reluctance to apply the law—a law imposed by the Labour Government—I have some sympathy with the trade union movement. But I suggest that what is needed in this situation is for the Government to amend the law.
In some countries, notably on the other side of the Atlantic, if an employer does not accept a recognition recommendation which has been properly arrived at by the statutory procedures, there are many more penal sanctions than are involved in


reference to the Central Arbitration Committee, and those sanctions are more closely related to the implementation of recognition recommendations. It would not affront me if an employer who found himself in that situation were to be subject to an injunction, or even to a fine.
But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we accept some of the failures to follow the procedures laid down—not by us, but by the Labour Government—surely those procedures should be improved, but, on the other side of the coin, the recognition procedure should be tightened up.
Although the Minister gave a lordly reference to the good reasons why employers should not be able to refer recognition matters, he did not explain with any cogency what the reasons were. I believe that the employer should have a right to refer a recognition dispute to ACAS because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said, there may be a recognition dispute between two unions. Therefore, the arguments advanced against an employer having a right to make such a reference do not stand examination.
If an employer makes a reference and there is a recommendation which is not implemented, what sanctions can the employer take? If it is said that the only objection to the employer having a right to refer a recognition dispute to ACAS is that there can be no sanctions to enforce implementation of the ultimate recommendation, the Minister is lacking in the imagination and comprehension with which I would credit him. It is difficult to see what the situation would be. If it were recommended that there should be no recognition, it is hardly likely that the employer would be unduly distressed or would find it difficult to implement that recommendation.
What if the union then resists? On that point my right hon. Friend's remarks were most apposite. If the union resists the decision of ACAS that there should be no recognition because there is not a sufficent degree of support, what can the union do about the matter? The answer is that it can resort to industrial action and the sort of "blacking" which has been the subject matter of so much of this debate. But on the footing I have described there will be no justifica-

tion for that whatever, because an independent body would have examined the situation and would have concluded that the union ought not to be recognised.
If the employer should be compelled to accept a recognition recommendation, it is reasonable that the union should be compelled to accept a non-recognition recommendation. What the union would try to do about the situation would be to use its normal industrial powers to force the employer to recognise it, even though ACAS had recommended that it should not be recognised. I think that that would be regarded generally as intolerable action on the part of a trade union, and in those circumstances it would be reasonable for society as a whole, as part of its general procedure for the orderly resolution of this type of dispute, to say that the union should not have the considerable powers granted to it by the law, powers that take the matter away from the normal situation in which the union has to abide by the law and permit the union to induce breach of contract and to be immune from action in tort in respect of its behaviour.
The concept advanced by my right hon. Friend would be an effective sanction. If we were to tighten up the arrangements for the recognition procedure so that ACAS had the power to do its job, so that the employer could take out an injunction but at the same time, in an even-handed way, require the union not to engage in the sort of practices we have heard about while the recognition matter was before ACAS and after the decision had gone against it, we should improve the present arrangements. There would be no pretext for either side to take industrial action instead of going through the proper procedures to determine these matters.
Labour Members constantly pretend that they do not want the law brought into trade union matters, but they do. Indeed, they have invented their own laws. Anybody who sat through 40 sittings of the Employment Protection Bill in Standing Committee will never take seriously Labour's assertion that it does not want the law brought into this sphere of activity. Labour has changed the names and altered the law by tilting its balance, but the law is still there right in the middle. I suggest that we should


get the law right and stick to it. We should then avoid a lot of humbug.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: With great respect to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), I had hoped that there was enough experience in this House in industrial relations for hon. Gentlemen to realise by now that we cannot take the law and beat people over the head with it until they co-operate. Co-operation can be won only by persuasion and argument. The Conservative Party still does not understand this. God forbid if the Conservatives ever find themselves in power and in a position to do anything about the situation. We would be down the slippery slope again.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) started, as it were, half way up the street. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) said, men involved in this part of the printing and publishing industry are being de-skilled. They are being told "We do not want you doing the job any more because machines can now do it more cheaply, better and more quickly". If we stop to think about these disputes in British industry, we come to realise that we are increasingly making it impossible, and certainly very difficult, for men to work with their own hands. Many men in the printing and publishing industries who have followed their fathers into that work and who have spent a lifetime in the industry now see that work drying up or being undertaken elsewhere.
Let me tell the House why there is so much agitation. A third of the men and women employed in Fleet Street will lose their jobs in the next three or four years—that is the price which the new technology is extracting in Fleet Street. It is a virtual death sentence on many workers in the industry. They cannot just pick up another job once they have been made redundant because there are no other jobs in Fleet Street, or indeed elsewhere. I ask hon. Gentlemen to understand that these strong emotions have arisen not just because the workers in this industry are finding their jobs being taken away from them but because their very livelihood is being removed.
It has been suggested—I do not want to make heavy weather of this because the language used has been moderate, although some of the phrases have not been moderate—that SLADE and the NGA are acting like people who wear jackboots. Instead of steel knobs on their boots they have felt, but they are using jackboots, it is said, none the less.
In any dispute of this kind there will be accusation and counter-accusation. Let me give three examples. At one of the top 10 London agencies—Collett, Dieckinson and Pearce of Howland Street, London, W.1—when eventually SLADE was able to go in to talk to the staff—we can leave aside the cameras of Thames Television which happened to be there—the union discovered that, Nixon-style, the whole of the conversation had been tape-recorded. How is that supposed to make sensible talking and explanation possible?

Mr. Cyril Smith: It was not sensible talking.

Mr. Corbett: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view. The union was invited in to put its case. I should be very surprised if the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, would defend a system whereby an employer put a bug under a desk during meetings between union officials and those whom they hoped to recruit.
I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft did not say that this is not a problem that affects every agency or every art studio. Far from it. Both SLADE and the NGA have reached many agreements. However, there is an agency called J. Piercy, owned by the National Magazine Company, which, in turn, is owned by Hearst, an American outfit, I understand. When eventually, having recruited members there, SLADE sought to have talks about the possibility of an agreement, lo and behold, it discovered that the first thing that management, with great regret and tears in its eyes, wanted to talk about was selective redundancies. The July 1976 issue of the SLADE journal tells us—perhaps it could just be by chance—the chosen few for selective redundancy
comprised the elected representatives of the newly joined SAU employees along with four other colleagues".


Therefore, let no one pretend that all the wickedness, if wickedness there has been, happens solely to one side of the argument.
There is the case of an agency in Leeds referred to in the June 1977 issue of the SLADE journal, at which 11 of the artists approached agreed to join SLADE, but before they could do so they were dismissed by the firm for inefficiency. At a second agency five artists joined, and this time they were all sacked for joining the union. Perhaps there are remedies open to the union and to those members in such circumstances, but the message should not go out from this House that all the pressure is coming from one side.
I ask the House to understand, against the background of the loss of skill, against the very real promise—that is what it is—of massive job loss right through this industry, that men and women who see work which has traditionally been done in their area are saying, as the new technology takes over, no more than "All right. If the work is moved out of the print shops where it has normally been done because of this new technology, we shall, as a union, attempt to follow the work." With the certainty of less job security, men and women in this position will not just try to hold on to what they have got but will try to get back some of the work which has been lost to them because of the growth of the new technology.
There have been great arguments and battles, along Fleet Street over the introduction of new technology, and in the end agreement has been reached. I think it right that the trade unions should say, particularly at the reproduction end of this argument and the great newspapers and magazines, "All right, we shall accept that this material will now be prepared in different ways and outside our normal places of work but, as a quid pro quo for that arrangement, we must have the right to be able to extend union membership into the advertising agencies and the art studios where the work is now being done, because traditionally it is our work."
It may be thought only small beer, but people faced with the job loss in the traditional part of this industry see that as a small way of trying to improve job security, to enhance their job prospects and to give them some possible alterna-

tives if and when they are made redundant along The Street.
We are told—some of us were at a meeting the other night at which it was made fairly clear—that not many of the people currently working in the advertising agencies want anything to do with SLADE or any other union. There was in 15 agencies, I understand, a ballot carried out by the Industrial Society, and the results showed that 44 felt that they wanted trade unions and 2,584 felt that they did not. Of those asked whether they would join, 234 said that they would and 2,233 said that they would not.
That may seem compelling evidence not just of disinterest but of complete antagonism to the idea of trade unionism. But I do not believe that one can claim that on the strength of that ballot. One was measuring prejudice. The unions had no unfettered ability to go in, in a calm and neutral atmosphere, to talk to people in those agencies about their attitude to trade unions. Indeed, in one agency the meeting had started an hour before, when the employer had given his views, and it was aided by a free bar at the end of the room. These brilliant whizz-kid instant communicators—because that is what they are—happened to feel the need, when the time came to question the union officials who had gone there, to produce bits of paper from their pockets and read out prepared questions. Clearly, therefore, with the atmosphere at that meeting in that agency, it is not surprising that the result of the ballot came out as it did. No hon. Member will say that in an absolute sense that is a proper test of attitudes towards trade unions.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that SLADE itself has never asserted that there will be any immediate benefits coming from joining—neither in pay nor in terms and conditions. No benefits have come. So what case has SLADE got for inviting these men in the factory to join when there are no benefits for many of those highly-paid men from joining a union at all?

Mr. Corbett: I am not here acting as a recruiting sergeant for SLADE, but it is my view, for what it is worth, that the first question that one should ask when


contemplating trade union membership is not "What can I get out of it?" but "What can I put into it?" It is trade union members who run trade unions and employ general secretaries, not the other way round. It is not a fruit machine at which one waits for the three bananas to come up.
Not everybody working in advertising agencies earns big money. They are not all whizz-kids. It is exactly the same with magazines. There is a place for whizz-kids. There are very few of them around. But whizz-kids need some of the more routine and dull jobs to be done for them to operate as whizz-kids.
There is a report in another issue of the SLADE journal this year about a 26-year-old artist in a studio in Leeds being paid £20 a week. I do not make the accusation that all those who work in advertising agencies or art studios are grossly underpaid or exploited, but it has already been argued—I touch on this only briefly—that in everyone's interest this industry needs to be better regulated and better organised, with more systematic training and so on.
It will be argued by SLADE that there are many studios in London and elsewhere with which agreements have been sensibly reached but, because those studios fear that the 10 largest agencies would reduce or stop the placing of work with them if that fact were known, these studios have asked the union not to make those agreements public.
It will be argued by SLADE also that many jobbing printers, for years quite properly organised by the trade union movement, are worried at the very disorganised way in which some of the agencies sometimes do their business, so that, at no more than the whim of the creative director or whatever he is called, they may lose an important piece of print work.
I repeat that it is necessary in some way—I do not say that the present methods chosen are right—for this part of the industry which is going through such turmoil to be regulated in everyone's interests.
Both my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Lowestoft said that there is to be a meet-

ing between the IPA and the TUC Printing Industries Committee. I imagine that all of us in the House will wish that meeting well, since it may well be that one step on the way to a solution of this difficult, emotional and confused problem lies in the willingness and ability of those principally involved at least to sit down and talk to see whether there is a more sensible way of going ahead.
I end on this note. In this world there is no such thing as absolute freedom. There is no absolute freedom for me to go out tomorrow morning, start an advertising agency and book space on behalf of clients either direct or through the Newspaper Publishers Association. There is no way for me to demand from the Newspaper Publishers Association the discount which it gives for the big space bookings.
Just as they accept that there is reason, logic and a sense of regulation and control in the way in which they do their business, the proprietors need also, I suggest, to understand and accept that there is a parallel and matching need for the other end of their business to be similarly regulated, provided—I add this proviso deliberately—that we are talking about persuading and winning the willingness of men and women working in the studios and agencies to come into the trade union movement for the strength which they can give to the industry and for the hope which they can bring for better job protection and conditions.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I, too, wish that meeting well. I wish it success, but I can only hope that those at the meeting to which so much reference has been made will approach the issue with a twentieth-century attitude, or even a twenty-first century attitude, rather than—as does happen—with a nineteenth-century attitude.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), I must tell him that, if he has a sense of complaint about machines overtaking work done by men, he will have to get used to it if he truly believes that what this country needs is investment. A frequent consequence of investment is that machines replace men. This is a fact of life which the trade union movement will have to get used to, if it has not already done so.
This debate, however, is about methods used to persuade people to join a trade union. It is not a debate about whether they should become members of a union. It is not about whether they should have the right to become members of a union. It is not about whether a union should have a right to persuade them to become members. It is a debate about the methods used to persuade them to become members. I wish, therefore, to put on record certain views which I hold and which my party holds in regard to the method of recruitment used by SLADE, in particular, and in industry generally.
First, it should be clearly stated that, if democracy is to be maintained, it must be based on a respect for law and that law has to be maintained in an orderly manner. Blackmail, bullying, mass hooliganism and mob rule have no place in a true democracy. The first conclusion to be drawn from that is that we must have a police force that is respected and that, although it may occasionally err, is nevertheless backed by those who make the law, that is, by Parliament. I deplore the attacks which have been made on the police and, indeed, on the judges in recent weeks. I regard these as dangerous signs. Any Government worth their salt would thoroughly condemn them and make absolutely clear that they deplore such attacks.
However, having said that, I express the strongly held view that any person who wishes to join a trade union should be allowed to do so. Equally strongly, on the other hand, I hold the view, and so does my party, that a person who does not wish to join a trade union should not be compelled to do so, and certainly should not be bullied into doing so. Where a majority of employees do not wish to do so, they should not be coerced into joining. What has happened, how-ever—it can be proved to have happened—is that there are groups of people who, even where the large majority, or, in some cases, 100 per cent., did not wish to join SLADE, have been compelled to do so.
It is as wrong to force people to join a union when they do not wish to do so as it is to prevent a man from joining if he wishes. One hon. Member said earlier that the will of the majority should prevail. It can be clearly proved that there are cases in which SLADE has

compelled employees to join a union although the vast majority in the company did not wish to do so. I can give one example—I shall not give details now, but I am prepared to send the evidence to any hon. Member who wants it—of an employer who is actually paying the union dues of his employees although they did not want to join. The truth is that he did not wish to be blacked, so he is paying the union subs each week in order to keep the union happy.
That is why I believe that such phrases as "protection money "and" protection rackets" are not out of place in this debate. There are employers who are paying fees for their employees in order to protect themselves from being blackmailed by SLADE in terms of work. We regard such a situation as quite intolerable.
If a man—the same applies to a woman—does not wish to join the union, he should not be blackmailed into doing so, but there is clear evidence that SLADE is adopting deplorable tactics. They are disgraceful, scandalous tactics, and, frankly, they do trade unionism no good. In fact, they do it great harm. I put it to those hon. Members on the Government side who have spoken thus far that, when they talk about a reluctance on the part of people to join—the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead gave some figures in this connection—they should realise that one of the reasons why some of them are not anxious to join may well be that they have heard of the activities of SLADE and, not being people who understand trade unionism or who have been in a trade union in the past, they are a little afraid when they hear about some of the tactics being employed. I say, therefore, that SLADE is doing itself more harm than good by some of the methods which, without doubt, it is adopting.
I hope that the TUC will act to put an end to these disreputable antics. I believe that there are even Members of Parliament—I am not one of them—who have been affected through their business connections by some of the activities of SLADE in recent weeks. If the TUC and others who will be present at the meeting to which reference has been made are not able to make progress along those lines, I hope that the Government themselves will continue to press SLADE


and the TUC for action to be taken. The language of bullying and almost of thug-like telephone calls to employers is not the best way to preserve and enhance the interests of the trade union movement. Certainly, it is no basis on which democracy can be maintained.
I hope, therefore, that out of this debate will come the clear message that we believe in the rule of law, that we are proud of our police force, that we hate bullies, that we hate blackmail, that we shall not stand idle, and that whether such moves come from individuals, from mobs or from people imagining themselves to be trade unionists—even from people who may call themselves members of SLADE—we shall condemn them as a House and say that, if people wish to join a union, we are delighted, but if they do not, they have the right to refuse to do so and the right to the protection of the House if pressures are put upon them to force them to do so against their will.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am delighted to participate in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I first declare an interest in that I am a director of a group of advertising companies and have spent almost all of my working life in advertising in a similar way to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), who I am sorry has left the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman made one or two comments that I should like to take up.
I would take a moment of the time of the House to explain what working in an advertising agency or art studio is like. The hon. Member for Basildon gave a sadly biased picture. Agencies and studios are harmonious organisations. They are not conflict-based, as many companies are. People are professional in their approach to their work. They work in a professional atmosphere. There is no question of cowboy operations such as the hon. Member for Basildon suggested. We are talking about skilled people who do skilled work as teams.
This has to be so because the total work output is achieved only by team-work, usually operating to extremely tight schedules. The interrelationship between people is crucial. I am sorry

that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) is leaving because I was hoping to educate him. People, professionally and technically qualified at every level and in every part, are the only instruments for success. Therefore, proper mutual understanding is imperative.
Work in agencies and studios is relatively highly-paid. There is complete job mobility and people stay in jobs only where they are happy in that job. If not, they leave and go somewhere else.
One point which has not been mentioned is that there is widespread ownership in almost all agencies and studios. I have never known an agency where there is not some form of profit-sharing or bonus scheme or both. This means professional commitment to the job. Working conditions are good. That is directly important to the creative process. Bureaucracy is at a very minimum, in parts non-existent. Self-discipline is more important than corporate discipline. It is against this background that SLADE has been approaching agencies and studios.
In talks with SLADE representatives, people in studios and advertising agencies have over and over again asked the questions: "What does membership of SLADE offer? What can it do for me?" They have been searching to find out what the advantages might be. But over and over again, the SLADE union representatives have answered "Join up, and then we shall talk to management to see what we can do for you", or words to that effect.
With such answers it is no wonder that ballots conducted among 1,875 people in eight large agencies—the very agencies in which one might expect to find the greatest propensity to join—produced the following results: 85 per cent. did not want to join any union, only 9 per cent. expressed a desire to join, with the remainder not knowing one way or the other. Of the 9 per cent. wanting to join, less than half knew which union they wanted to join, and even after considerable talks, only two people wished to join SLADE.
Against considerable lack of interest in joining SLADE, and often against considerable animosity or even anger at the idea, the union has resorted again


and again to the most unsavoury and self-serving strong-arm tactics. Unfortunately, one has to use a term like "strong-arm tactics". In talking to the management SLADE has taken the line "Never mind what people think; management should persuade them that membership of SLADE is good for them—or else".
In spite of ballot confirmation that no one wished to join SLADE, some firms have been blacked by newspaper and other printing unions under pressure from SLADE, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) have pointed out. In a recent television programme Mr. Brian Murphy, who is head of information at the TUC, described the best method of recruiting to a union as follows:
Word of mouth. If a worker in an office or on the shop floor says 'I am a member of a union. I am proud to belong to it, and this is what it has achieved' then that is the most effective form of advertising.
On that description, SLADE'S methods seem violently opposed to those of other unions.
There seem to be two underlying weaknesses identified by these SLADE actions. First, much of the fuel for this action seemed to come from concern in SLADE that the union had been missing out in recruitment terms in its historical areas of interest and that rival unions, ASTMS, NATSOPA, NGA and others were eroding its position. That this concern led SLADE to use the tactics it used is indefensible, but it is easy to understand its problem, which seems to have been met by, first, an agreed peace formula between the major print unions establishing demarcation rules for recruitment, and, secondly, merger talks between NATSOPA and NGA which SLADE is now thinking of joining, and will be balloting its members in January of next year.
But could not the TUC be galvanised in some way to seek out and encourage such alternative peaceful solutions to inter-union squabbles and thereby avoid enervating and deeply distrubing activities such as so many studios and agencies have faced in the last two years—and which other companies in other businesses have been facing, are facing and

will continue to face in future? Such positive action would be in the interests of the trade union movement, of business and of people everywhere.
Second, the policy of coercion of people to join a union by blackmail tactics is contrary to any accepted code or belief in individual human rights, including the United Nations covenant ratified by this Government only last year. I would have liked to read to the House the necessary paragraphs which are to be found on pages 7 and 22 of this pamphlet "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". Cmnd. 6702.
What action should the Government take to minimise the chance of such happenings as these SLADE happenings in the future, and to mitigate their efforts should they happen? First, should not Section 3(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Amendment Act 1976 be re-examined and revised as necessary to make illegal activities which induce a breach of commercial contract? SLADE's threats to black are just such an activity which would have been illegal under the 1974 Act. And the operation of "fair lists" of SLADE unionised businesses would surely have been illegal too.
Suppose the whole TUC took the same actions that SLADE has been taking? Then all of the non-union working population would be blacked—a most worrying thought.
Secondly, should not the ability of a union to black output, and thereby to undermine an individual's right to work, be carefully examined, at least circumscribed, and at best abolished?
Thirdly, should not the Government review the operation of the Employment Protection Act, particularly as it establishes the powers of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service? At present only unions can refer a recognition problem to them. Should not companies be allowed to do so as well?
The Government's assurances that ACAS would be able to assist companies seem not to have applied to those companies who have recently had to deal with the problem raised by SLADE's activities—particularly as SLADE itself was not prepared to refer to ACAS and refuses company requests to do so.
Could not the Government, like the unions themselves, take the message and get on with these things that need doing?

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: This has been a good debate if rather shorter than was anticipated because of the statements that preceded it. But the issues have become a great deal clearer as a result of the debate and perhaps clearer than the Minister would have had us believe. However, I welcome the statement that the Minister made towards the end of his speech.
The most significant feature of the whole debate, which, I remind the House, is about the
Recruiting methods and techniques of SLADE
is that not a single speech has been made in any part of the House that has not criticised or not commented upon the
Recruiting methods and techniques of SLADE ",
There has not been a single defender of the techniques and methods that were attracting criticism from this side of the House. Certainly they were not being defended by Labour Members. I hope that SLADE and the NGA will take account of this, because—perhaps we know it better than they do—often what is not said in the House is as significant as what is said. No one—not even the most militant, Left-wing pro-trade union supporter, the person who believes that trade unions can never in any circumstances do any wrong—has come here to defend the blackmailing, bullying tactics that have rightly been condemned in many of the speeches today.
The hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) and Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), both well respected, able, intelligent Members, had to deploy their speeches in dealing with matters not under criticism. I accept that they were right to point to the difficulties that flow from the development of new technologies. The hon. Member for Basildon referred to the erosion of skills and said that that was at the base of the problem. I suppose that all Members with any knowledge of industry realise that there are such problems right across the whole span of industry.
We know that many old skills are being replaced by new machines and techniques. That, of course, causes great concern. It is right that the House should be worried about these problems and should attempt to find ways of resolving the real fears among individuals who see their traditional rôle in important industries under threat. But that is not what this debate is about.
Even if we accept that that is the reason for some of the activities that have been criticised, it still does not help those concerned. Putting pressure upon individual photographers or illustrators, on small or large advertising agencies, will not protect the jobs of those who are under threat because of new technology. That is merely trying to extend membership of the union. That is an entirely different question. The number of people whom the union will have in membership is not the same as protecting the skills and jobs of those who are being overtaken and adversely affected by new technology.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The point surely must be made that blacking, or the threat of blacking, small provincial agencies, such as one in my constituency, will serve only to reduce jobs and recruitment and bring great hardship to the industry.

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is going on is job destruction, not job preservation, and that is emanating from a union, which we are told, is concerned about its members and their prospects for the future. There is something so paradoxical about it that we can only hope that, when SLADE looks at the matter in the light of what has been said in this debate, it will come round to the view that some of the techniques and methods that it has been adopting should be put on one side as having been ill-conceived.
The fact that SLADE is trying to impose union membership upon unwilling individuals in wholly non-union situations cannot possibly be justified. There are large numbers of freelance people with skill and artistic ability—members of the Association of Fashion Advertising and Editorial Photographers, of the Association of Illustrators Gallery, and others of that ilk. Such people, with skill and ability, who have made their own living, often on a freelance basis, now see the


activities of SLADE threatening their livelihoods. They cannot face the prospect of their work being blacked for any time. If it is blacked even for a few weeks, that could put them out of their livelihood entirely. It is monstrous that a union with SLADE's long history should use such tactics against such individuals. I hope that it will reconsider what it is doing.
The points made about recognition are of great importance and may have wider application outside this area. I think that our arguments in Committee on the Employment Protection Bill—that under the Section 11 procedures employers should have the right to refer and to trigger off the recognition operations of ACAS—have been shown to be wholly justified.
The Minister made a somewhat pedantic point about enforcement. He seemed to say that employers should not have the right to refer because of what would happen if, at the end of the day, the union concerned refused to accept and implement the recommendations that ACAS might make. If an employer refuses to accept the ACAS recommendations, there is provision in the Act for the Central Arbitration Committee to act. There is a complicated procedure for enforcement mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan).
What would happen if a trade union refused to accept the ACAS report? If, in the circumstances with which we are concerned, ACAS had gone in and truly reported that there was no interest on the part of individuals to join the union, presumably SLADE would have accepted that and pulled back. If not, and if we had a series of instances in which trade unions refused to accept the clear recommendations of ACAS on recognition issues, we should have to consider changes in the law.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) specifically suggested that perhaps the immunities that Parliament grants to industrial action in a broad sense should be looked at again in particular circumstances where blacking procedures are adopted on recognition issues and where the union concerned is not complying with the ACAS report. That would seem to be a sensible and

reasonable way to proceed. There are ways of getting out of the difficulty.
This has not been an anti-union, union-bashing debate. It has not been an anti-SLADE debate. It has been an anti-recruiting methods and techniques and tactics of SLADE debate. I make no apology for that being the purpose of the debate. Some of the things that have been done in the name of SLADE to increase its membership are wholly repugnant to the vast majority of Members, wherever they sit, and to the trade union movement.
What has come from the debate has been a general condemnation of these tactics and pressures—the blackmailing, as it has been called, the protection racket—that have been operated in certain circumstances. That language is justified by well-established factual records of what has happened.
There has been a clear call from the House that the blacking should be suspended. I hope that constructive proposals will come from the meeting of the Printing Industries Committee of the TUC with the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising on 19th July. I suggest that the matter should be widened to include the Newspaper Society—perhaps not at that meeting, but at another—in order to cover the whole industry and to try to get the whole thing on a proper footing. I am sure that is the call that goes out from the House.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will reinforce, perhaps in more stalwart language, the criticisms implicit in the carefully worded comments of the Minister of State.

6.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of Slate for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I begin by saying how pleased I was that it was the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) who spoke first in the debate. Frankly, I have been a bit worried about Jim, because it seems that in recent days he has been shunted to one side to make way for the more hysterical outbursts on industrial matters of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I was confirmed in my view by reading an article by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East in the Daily Mail. That paper was certainly a suitable


vehicle for the right hon. Gentleman's views.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft used strong language, and strong language has been used throughout the debate about the activities of SLADE. This is a very important issue and we should recognise that it is also an emotive issue. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said that this was not a union-bashing debate, that the real concern was about the fundamental issue of the closed shop. I shall not have time to go into that subject in detail, but my right hon. Friend has already said a great deal about it.
Although it may not have been a union-bashing debate, underneath so much of what the Opposition have said there lies a basic anti-trade union pre-judice. That takes us back to the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill. In selecting this subject for debate the Opposition thought that they could embarrass the Government. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft came very close to saying that. I cannot help but observe that what angers Opposition Members is the fact that we have broadly got back to sanity in industrial relations.
Of course, there are always major disputes of this kind. There always have been and there always will be. But the figures for working days lost through strikes in 1976 illustrate my point. There has been a dramatic break-through to industrial peace.

Mr. Hayhoe: What about tomorrow's figures?

Mr. Grant: Tomorrow's figures may not be as good, but by comparison with the period when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, there is a marked difference.
Trade unions clearly have considerable power and most hon. Members would agree that they usually use it wisely and responsibly. It is in their own best interests to do so. The best recruit is the volunteer, and one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men. However, there is a powerful argument for the closed shop, particularly where there is potential or real exploitation of the work force.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) felt that my right

hon. Friend the Minister of State did not acknowledge sufficiently vigorously the various charges about SLADE in regard to coercion and so on. That view was repeated by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. This is a very serious situation. It may not be capable of settlement through normal industrial relations channels. It could be that Ministers in the Deparment of Employment will have to be involved at some stage, but it would be wrong for them to put themselves in a position in which, if their services were called on, they would not be regarded as impartial. I think that the Opposition Front Bench will acknowledge that. They would be the first to accuse us if we went too far in that direction or any other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) said that we were dealing with a tough industry. Like him, I have some personal experience of the printing and particularly the newspaper industry, and I agree with him. He would probably agree with me that the whole issue of the closed shop was nothing like the major issue that it now seems to have become until we had the Conservative industrial relations legislation. That brought the closed shop into a new kind of prominence, promoting it as a major issue and bringing about a polarisation of attitudes.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made much of the need for the powers of ACAS to be strengthened and said that the procedures provided should always be followed. It was this insistence on perfection that was the hallmark of the previous Conservative Government and that brought it into such massive disrepute in industrial relations. We cannot have that kind of perfection in industrial relations.
There has been some misunderstanding about the rôle of ACAS. Its rôle is not to impose solutions but to conciliate and to try to promote agreement by persuasion. When we get to the point at which the activities of ACAS involve sanctions, we are in danger of seriously damaging its effectiveness.
My right hon. Friend indicated previously the large number of settlements of recognition cases where there was withdrawal and a successful settlement after referral to ACAS. I do not have the success rate with me, but it is apparent


that the kind of issue we are discussing today is comparatively rare.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) said that there was no absolute freedom, and I agree. I have made similar comments myself about the freedom of the Press. Freedom is one of the most abused words in use today. I was very interested in what my hon. Friend said about regulation and control, and I wish that we had time to develop that theme.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) spoke about Government pressure but we are not involved in that way at this stage. I suppose that we could become involved, but that is all the more reason why I and my right hon. Friend feel it right to measure our words very carefully in responding to this debate.
The hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) painted an extraordinary picture of the advertising industry. It may be that it was correct, but I was waiting for the "jingle" to come on afterwards. He certainly knows how to advertise. He asked for the TUC to be galvanised, and I think that everyone will agree that the meeting set for 19th July is very important.

Mr. John Page: Mr. John Page (Harrow, West) rose—

Mr. Grant: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have only a few minutes, and anyway he has not been present during the debate.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made a valid comment when he said that most hon. Members had expressed criticism of one degree or another. I think that is right, and I hope that those who are directly involved in the dispute will take careful note of the views expressed in the House today.
The Minister of State has made the Government's position very clear. We are concerned about SLADE's tactics, but we cannot conceive that the intervention of the law in this kind of situation would help. If experience of the recent past is a guide, it is reasonable to assume that such intervention would be counter-productive. It is best at this time to accept the good offices of the TUC Printing Industries Committee as the best hope of securing a fair and satisfactory solu-

tion, though we in no way underrate the difficulties of achieving that.
I do not believe that it is ever wise for Governments or the House to have a totally closed mind about existing legislation. It must stand up to the test of experience, but the experience must be gained over a considerable period in order to be truly relevant. The recognition provisions of the Employment Protection Act are still relatively new. They came into operation last year and a number of the procedures have not yet been used.
Finally, we say to the parties in this and other industrial disputes that the big stick is not the best way to resolve industrial relations problems. It could not be used in this situation without causing indiscriminate damage, often to the user as well as to those on the receiving end, and damage also to innocent bystanders.
The Government have established new procedures for the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes, and they are proving to be of immense value. I know that various criticisms have been made, particularly by hon. Members opposite, about loopholes and gaps. However, it is too early for us to consider changing the law in that respect.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill


be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

SUPPLY

Again considered.

Postponed proceeding of Question, That this House do now adjourn, resumed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES) MEASURE

7.4 p.m.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Terry Walker): I beg to move,
That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This measure has two main purposes. First, it deals with the cases in which a clergyman is no longer able, through old age or infirmity, to minister as he should to the people of his parish. It provides that after due inquiry he can be required to leave his benefice, but, if he has to go, there is provision for financial compensation. This part of the measure re-enacts provisions that have been on the statute book for more than 30 years.
The second purpose of the measure is to carry the same principle a stage further and to provide for cases in which a clergyman is no longer able to minister to the people of his benefice because there has been a total breakdown in the relationship between him and them. Here again, after due inquiry, the clergyman can be required to leave his benefice, and again there is provision for financial compensation for the loss which the clergyman suffers if he has to give up his living.
Hon. Members will recall that some 20 months ago, on 15th October 1975, I

brought a similar measure before the House which was rejected. At that time the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) put his finger on a flaw in the measure. It was a flaw which had not been seen by the General Synod or the Ecclesiastical Committee and which had escaped the attention of another place. The hon. Member's point was that according to the measure, as it then was, a clergyman who became involved in an inquiry under the pastoral breakdown provisions could not demand as of right to be heard by the committee or tribunal looking into his case.
On that occasion I was pressed to withdraw the measure. Hon. Members said—and I particularly remember the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood)—that they understood the need for the measure but could not support it as it stood. Rightly or wrongly, I pressed the matter to a Division and the motion was defeated.
However, I am sure that tonight I bring to the House a much better measure. It is much better because the General Synod has rectified not only the main matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells but has dealt fully—as I am sure the hon. and learned Member will recognise—with various subsidiary points that he also raised on that occasion. I should like to record on behalf of the General Synod, that it is grateful to the hon. and learned Member for the vigilance that he showed on that occasion, and I pay tribute to him.
I do not think that on the second hearing the House will want me to go through the measure clause by clause so I shall make just a few points that need to be made. First, this measure, if it is approved, will rarely be invoked. In the 32 years since the measure dealing with old age and infirmity cases was enacted, its provisions have been implemented only rarely. The fact that the measure was there, available for use if need be, was sufficient. That has always been enough. The General Synod expects, similarly, that if the new measure is approved tonight the pastoral breakdown provisions will rarely need to be used and that a clergyman will be ready to accept other work or, if no other work as a priest is to be found, to


accept financial compensation rather than go through the process of inquiry.
The problem with which the measure deals is undoubtedly a small one, in relation to age and infirmity and to cases of pastoral breakdown. However, though the numbers may be small, the effects are serious for those who suffer them. It means that in a parish there can be a clergyman holding freehold office as rector or vicar, and providing the statutory church services, but having effectively ceased to minister to the people whom he was sent to care for spiritually and to serve. In such a case, the diocesan bishop will try—as soon as he senses that there is difficulty—to heal the differences and to reconcile the parties. Often he will succeed. However, there remains in every diocese the odd case where all efforts at reconciliation fail. Sometimes the fault will lie not with the clergyman but with the people. The measure protects the clergyman in such cases.
In a real sense the relationship of parson and parish is like a marriage. There are usually faults on both sides—as hon. Members will know well from their own experiences. There are tiffs, and they blow over. However, in some cases the relationship deteriorates and breaks down, and in the end it is in everyone's interest for the couple to part.
The power for which the Church of England is seeking in the measure is one that, in one way or another, every other Church in this country and in the Anglican Communion already has. The Church of England, in seeking this power, is ready and willing, as the measure shows, to see it hedged about with safeguards and to provide generously for the clergyman who must give up his living. I am sure that there will be in the minds of some hon. Members tonight—wherever they sit in the House—the fear that the measure may be used against clergymen whose political and social opinions are unpopular. I am sure that we all know of cases where parsons and people are at odds over politics. But the protection for the clergyman lies in the fact that, whether he opts for a hearing by a diocesan committee or by a provincial legal tribunal, his case will be heard by his peers.
I am sure that the clergyman will have confidence in the fair-mindedness of his fellow clergy, who will naturally and

readily wish to defend a brother's right to speak his mind as his conscience dictates. Fair-mindedness is not a quality exclusive to the clergy. There is the further protection that he can be required to give up his living only if at least four of the five members of inquiry or the tribunal support this course.
In presenting this measure, I can tell the House that the General Synod has met every criticism voiced in the House 20 months ago. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells has now entered the Chamber. I wish to thank him for the improvements in the measure for which he is responsible. I hope that he will agree that we have met all the objections that he made in the last debate, and I paid tribute to him earlier when he was not in the Chamber.
I must draw attention to a difference between my case today and the case that I presented in 1975. Last time, I was able to say that at the various stages of consideration by the Synod there had at no point been a division. This time, at the final stage before the Synod, there was a division. It was a division by Houses so that we know not only the overall majority but how bishops, clergy and laity voted separately. The overall result was 250 votes in favour and 136 against, but in the House of Clergy, the voting was 93 in favour and 87 against—a majority of only six.
It is difficult for me, a mere layman, to explain why there was so small a majority for a measure that was originally called for by the clergy themselves and that they had previously seemed so ready to accept. I can offer only these pointers. There were some persuasive speeches suggesting that the measure is a major inroad upon the parson's freehold. I believe that it is nothing of the kind. It will protect the principle of the freehold by providing a solution in the few cases that discredit an otherwise excellent principle.
Secondly, the changes that the Synod was called upon to make by the House have played some part. What emerges from the new measure is unquestionably more respectable from a lawyer's standpoint, but for some clergy the additional protections—well meant as they are—give the whole business a disagreeable flavour of a court room trial, and that


may have had some bearing in the minds of some clergy.
I believe that the misgivings are mistaken and that the changes that the House insisted upon are improvements. I am sure that the safeguards built into the measure secure the parson against frivolous complaints or attacks simply because he holds opinions that influential parishioners do not like.
The measure deals generously with a clergyman, no matter how perversely he may have behaved. However, if it appears, in the last resort, that a clergyman can no longer minister effectively to his people, if there is a distress and unhappiness among them and if all attempts at reconciliation have been tried and have failed, it is not unreasonable for the clergyman to be asked to withdraw from a situation where he can do no more good.
However, it is right that in such a case he should be provided for financially in a generous way, and that is what the measure does. We have a duty to the clergy to see that this measure gives them adequate protection legally and financially—and I believe it does—but we have a duty in the last instance to the ordinary Church people, men, women and children, to see that they are not denied the pastoral care to which they are entitled. The measure fairly meets both these needs.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I apologise to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for not being here for the first few minutes of his speech. The debate started a little earlier than I had expected. I thank the hon. Gentleman most warmly for his generous observations towards myself, the more so because it must have been tiresome for him and the Synod, who had worked very hard on the measure for a long time, to have it rejected by the House. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated in a generous way that he understands the reasons that motivated the House on that occasion.
I am glad to repeat what I said in our last debate—that I am wholly in favour

of the principle behind the measure. It is right that there should be power to secure the vacation of a benefice where the pastoral relationship between the clergyman and the parish has broken down, whether because, or without any suggestion of misconduct by the clergyman.
However, it is equally important to bear in mind that if a clergyman is relieved of a benefice in these circumstances, he loses not only his livelihood but, in many cases, his home. That is why it seemed essential that there should be an opportunity for a fair hearing. The measure seemed defective to me in that respect and also because there was no provision for proceedings to be held in public.
I understand the reluctance of any parson to become involved in what might seem to be court hearings or to have anything of the nature of a court hearing. I understand why many people recoil from that, but the procedures of our courts have been designed, however imperfectly, to secure fairness, and it was only in order to secure fairness for the clergymen who might be involved in these proceedings that the House rejected the measure in October 1975.
I am entirely satisfied that the new measure meets the points that were put in the last debate and remedies the defects that concerned us then. I am grateful that the General Synod has remedied the defects. I remain entirely in favour of the principle of the measure and entirely satisfied that the defects of the original measure have been put right.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock.